17008: Cut To The Chase, Cut To The Quick, Cut Out Completely.

Advertising Age reported on how federal agency cuts are impacting Adland. While White advertising agencies may be adversely affected by reduced and retracted governmental contracts, non-White shops will likely experience far greater losses.

 

The Trump administration’s anti-DEIBA+ stance poses direct threats to crumby assignments historically delegated to minority agencies.

 

To compound matters, minority agencies have been routinely relegated to second-class status—or worse—in multi-agency coalitions servicing ginormous governmental accounts such as the U.S. Army and U.S. Census.

 

In the emerging environment, typical Prime Redlining could be entirely erased. The erasure, however, won’t be rooted in progressing toward fairness, equity, and justice; rather, it will ignited by an increased exertion of control, dominance, and power from the ruling majority.

 

How federal agency cuts are affecting the ad industry

 

Contracts are being scrapped and campaigns put on pause as Elon Musk’s DOGE slashes the federal bureaucracy

 

By Ewan Larkin

 

The Trump administration’s mission to pare down the government is taking a toll on marketing shops responsible for supporting federal agencies.

 

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) led by Elon Musk has moved swiftly to cancel government contracts and reshape the federal workforce by slashing jobs. Musk, the owner of X and adviser to President Donald Trump, aims to hit $1 trillion in savings and has said the DOGE team is already working inside nearly every federal agency.

 

Some departments are feeling the heat more than others, including the Department of Veterans Affairs and the U.S. Agency for International Development, which has led to scrapped contracts with ad agencies, paused marketing campaigns and more. Agencies, in turn, have been forced into making job cuts and pivoting to focus on new areas. And with cuts—and reversals—coming abruptly, all the involved parties are keeping a low profile.

 

“It is an environment of deep anxiety,” said one communications agency executive who works with an impacted federal agency and who, like almost everyone interviewed for this story, requested anonymity to speak freely. People are “wondering every day whether funding is going to be cut.”

 

Feeling the impact

 

Several federal agencies, including some within the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services, have paused some marketing campaigns, according to multiple people familiar with the matter. (HHS and DHS did not provide comment.) Many departments are doing their best not to attract unwanted attention, said a second marketing agency executive.

 

“We’ve had a lot of clients keep their heads down,” this person said. Without canceling contracts, they “have scaled back or put things on pause.”

 

A third ad agency executive noted that some contracts are being put on hold for 90 days, which presents numerous challenges. “We’re supposed to keep our staff on hold for 90 days while the government gets their shit together? Yeah, that’s nearly impossible to do,” this executive said, noting that agencies with government contracts cannot fire or rehire staff easily due to lengthy clearance processes.

 

Some contracts are being entirely scrapped, too. The U.S. Agency for International Development—which manages foreign assistance—has been hit particularly hard, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio boasting that 83% of USAID programs have been canceled. The fallout has reached Ogilvy PR, a longtime USAID partner, which recently saw its communications contract with the federal agency terminated, according to a person close to the situation.

 

Ogilvy PR declined to comment. USAID did not provide comment.

 

Marketing agencies have also had to cull their staff due to contract cuts. Due to canceled contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Virginia-based consultancy Aptive Resources recently laid off hundreds of employees, according to multiple people familiar with the matter. The cuts are incredibly fluid and unfolding gradually, making staffing decisions difficult for marketing shops.

 

Aptive Resources did not return multiple requests for comment. VA did not provide comment on which contracts it had canceled.

 

Many federal agencies are experiencing other sudden changes, including the HHS, which in January was told to pause all external communications.

 

That communications freeze appears to have impacted the marketing efforts of ​​the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency that provides health coverage to more than 160 million people through Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Health Insurance Marketplace. In July, CMS launched a review to find multiple shops to help develop, implement and evaluate national integrated communications campaigns. The federal agency had been providing public updates about the review, but has not posted anything since December.

 

In early February, federal agencies were allowed to resume some communications. Asked about the status of the review last week, a CMS spokesperson said the “communication hold for this solicitation has been lifted,” while adding that a decision has not been made.

 

Military contracts appear relatively unscathed, for now

 

DOGE has so far largely avoided many of the biggest sources of contract spending in the federal budget, including the Department of Defense (DOD), which includes military branches. 

 

Multiple agency executives who work with military units told Ad Age their scopes have not been reduced and there have not been any changes to contracts. Given Trump’s focus on having a strong military and an ongoing recruitment crisis, contracts with the DOD generally seem “safe,” said Mike Kapetanovic, a business development consultant at GrowthLab, which is focused on supporting advertising and marketing agencies that work in the public sector.

 

“I think DOD, writ large, is fine,” said Kapetanovic, who works with roughly 50 agencies. “I don’t see that getting cut. I’d be shocked, but I would have said the same thing about the VA two months ago.”

 

To be sure, any cuts to military contracts would have a substantial impact on the agencies involved. VML’s deals with the Marines and Navy are valued at $1.9 billion and $455 million, respectively, while DDB’s agreement with the Army stands at $4 billion. And GSD&M’s contract with the Air Force is worth roughly $741 million.

 

The DOD, Navy, Marines and Air Force did not provide comment.  

 

The Army has not made any changes to its contract with DDB nor shifted its marketing strategy, said Laura Francisco, public affairs officer at the Army Enterprise Marketing Office. In fact, the branch debuted a recruitment campaign on Monday, she said.

 

DDB’s new campaign highlights the dual lives—as both civilians and critical response personnel—of the Army National Guard’s members.

 

With all the uncertainty at the moment, Francisco didn’t rule out eventually having to tweak the Army’s marketing strategy, but said, “Unless they decide to shrink the size of our army … we’re still going to be marketing.”

 

DEI crackdown causes anxiety

 

The Trump administration has moved to implement an executive order to stop DEI programs across the government and its agencies, and repercussions have already started for some federal contractors, according to Dismas Locaria, a partner at Venable in Washington.

 

“I am aware of several contractors that have lost contracts, apparently based upon their DEI posture,” said Locaria. “The threat is real.”

 

Agencies working with the federal government that are still touting DEI need to figure out if they want to “resist and put a foot down” or “risk looking misaligned with the administration’s priorities” and lose out on opportunities, Locaria said.

 

The crackdown on DEI has also hurt morale at some shops.

 

The second agency executive told Ad Age their employees were required to scrub their pronouns from their email signatures, an order a few staffers took issue with and pushed back on. “We had to say … ‘We understand this is very personal for you, but this is a potential matter of our livelihoods, so we’ve got to play ball,’” this person said. “Some people understand that, and some people really don’t.”

 

What’s next

 

Agencies that rely heavily on contracts with the federal government are rethinking their growth strategies, according to Kapetanovic. Many shops, for example, are looking to “parlay their federal experience into appropriate commercial markets,” including high-regulated industries such as health care, financial services and utilities, he said.

 

“That’s one thing that a lot of these agencies are doing,” he added. 

 

The third agency executive said they are exploring more state-level contracting, citing increased opportunities in states including Florida and California. “It’s something we’ve been looking at for a while,” this person said. “As I've been talking to a lot of my peers in this space, I am hearing a lot of, ‘We need to be looking to state contracts.’”

 

This person also noted interest in doing more commercial work but added that such a transition won’t come without challenges. It “doesn't happen overnight,” this executive said. “But the agile, smart companies that have the resources to endure a painful three to six to 12 months are going to be able to figure out how to do that.”

15171: President Trump Inadvertently Orders White Ad Agencies To Stop Diversity Deceptions.

Advertising Age reported the 4As is officially protesting a new executive order from President Donald Trump that prevents federal contractors—including White advertising agencies—from implementing heat shields diversity training programs. Now, historically, such an order would have posed little concern, as most firms in adland only paid lip service to diversity. Technically, firms are still only paying lip service, except now they’re also paying money—likely tax-deductible investments—for such programs.

 

The order states that any contract with a White ad agency could be “canceled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part and the contractor may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts” if it is found that the agency implements training in violation of the stipulated guidelines. In short, violating shops could lose lucrative contracts with entities like U.S. Army, U.S. Census and more—perhaps even Ad Council too.

 

There is serious irony and karma at play here. After all, White ad agencies have traditionally won governmental assignments by creating the illusion of diversity via “partnerships” with minority firms, covertly establishing separate and unequal unions. Trump’s order is inadvertently exposing the hypocrisy and deception—and slamming the brakes on the biased bullshit.

 

Plus, it’s no secret that Trump strikes back at people he perceives to be enemies. So maybe the order is delayed retaliation for White ad agencies openly expressing disdain for the president. Although MDC Partners won’t have to worry about this possibility…

 

The truth is, White ad agencies are probably quietly applauding Trump’s move, as it provides them with an excuse to continue ignoring diversity.

 

4A’s Pushes Back On Trump’s Move To Suppress Diversity Training At Agencies

 

By Lindsay Rittenhouse

 

The American Association of Advertising Agencies (4A’s) is pushing back on U.S. President Donald Trump’s new executive order that prevents federal contractors, including ad agencies, from implementing diversity training that would seem to cover such issues as unconscious bias.

 

Alison Pepper, executive VP of government relations for the 4A’s, tells Ad Age that the trade body for advertising agencies is joining “several leading trade associations and companies that represent a broad array of industries to push back on this Executive Order.”

 

“We are reaching out to the appropriate parties at the Office of Management and Budget and Department of Labor to outline the many logistical problems associated with this [order],” Pepper says, “not to mention the significant expense faced by thousands of companies.”

 

Pepper says it is too early for the 4A’s to provide guidance to member agencies until it has a “better understanding of what the final [Department of Labor] regulations may look like. There will hopefully be some clarity on these important procedural matters soon so that agencies and other industries can understand what is expected of them,” she says.

 

Marla Kaplowitz, 4A’s president and CEO, added that the order, signed by Trump on Sept. 22, would upend the programs that agencies have “heavily invested in to hire, recruit and retain diverse and inclusive workforces and boards.” All of the holding companies and many agencies have made even further investments in diversity training in the wake of the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery. For example, WPP and Publicis Groupe committed $30 million and $50 million, respectively, to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts that would include employee training.

 

“As this Executive Order prohibits employee training on topics such as ‘stereotyping’ and ‘scapegoating’ based on race or sex—ambiguous terms that even courts of law have trouble parsing and applying—it complicates how agencies can evaluate their employee training programs for compliance,” Kaplowitz says. “At large, this Executive Order undermines important investments agencies are trying to make at a time when many Americans are asking what they, and the industry, can do to create a more diverse and equitable workplace.”

 

The order

 

The executive order, titled “Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping,” states that a contract with an agency or other federal contractor can be “canceled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part and the contractor may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts” if it is found that the organization in question implements training that goes against its guidelines.

 

Banned topics in diversity training, per the order, include “any form of race or sex scapegoating, including the concepts that (a) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; (b) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (c) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (d) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex; (e) an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (f) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; (g) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or (h) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.”

 

As defined by the order, “divisive” training includes “concepts that (1) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; (2) the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist; (3) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.”

 

The Department of Labor has been ordered to set up a hotline and investigate complaints of a federal contractor reported to be participating in such training.

 

Psychologists and other experts have long studied the adverse effects unconscious bias has on society, specifically in perpetuating systemic racism, and it is an issue that many agencies tackle through their diversity training.

 

Confusion and concern

 

According to several holding company executives, many with government contracts, the executive order has caused a lot of confusion and concern. They maintain though that diversity remains a focus.

 

Martin Sorrell, S4 Capital founder and executive chairman, commented on the order on an Advertising Week panel today, saying it’s “thrown a lot of confusion into the ring” for agencies and consultancies currently holding and pitching government contracts.

 

Two executives at different holding companies, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told Ad Age that they are holding out hope that the executive order will be deemed unconstitutional before it becomes law. Also, they say the order seems to only pertain to new government contracts, not existing ones.

 

The order states: “This order is effective immediately, except that the requirements of section 4 of this order shall apply to contracts entered into 60 days after the date of this order.” (Section 4 of the order pertains to the requirements for government contractors.)

 

One of the holding company executives said the “hope is we never really have to worry about this.”

 

“Until it becomes law and incorporated in our client contracts, we will continue our current training program and requirements,” the other holding company executive said.

 

If it does become law, however, the order could undoubtedly stymie the progress agencies have made in the past few months to create a more equitable industry.

15160: Sorry, Dead People Don’t Count…

Why is the U.S. Census using deceased figures to encourage people to Make Yourself Count?

14997: One Thing You Can Count on—U.S. Census Is Senseless.

Why is the U.S. Census recruiting for workers during times of social distancing and pandemic paranoia? Any takers for Census Takers? Then again, plenty of WPP employees will be available and seeking employment…

14274: McCann The Puppet Master…?

Adweek reported on the latest lunacy involving McCann and the U.S. Army, with a lawsuit being filed against the White advertising agency by a Black media company that accuses McCann of “misleading and defrauding the plaintiff through ad buys made on behalf of the U.S. Army as part of a minority recruitment push.” The plaintiff—Urban One—charges McCann used a struggling Black advertising agency as a “puppet” to make ad buys and qualify for governmental financial incentives tied to utilizing minority vendors. As a result, Urban One insists it is owed over $930k in ad placement costs—along with interest, added costs and legal fees for a grand total of $1.8 million. A McCann spokesperson said the Urban One “claims are baseless” and believes the case will be dismissed. Regardless, this is hardly the first time folks have questioned the professional pranks practices tied to White advertising agencies “partnering” with minority firms on big accounts featuring political and governmental components. See Draftfcb and the U.S. Census as another example. Is it a coincidence that the former Draftfcb and McCann were/are part of the IPG network? And McCann has certainly created controversial kookiness with the U.S. Army, despite obscenely profiting from the account. Hell, don’t be surprised if the White advertising agency leverages this lawsuit to further extend its governmental contact.

Lawsuit Says UM Used ‘Puppet’ Agency for Army’s Minority Recruitment, Then Left Media Unpaid

Urban One claims it is owed $1.8 million in damages

By Patrick Coffee

Urban One, a media company focused on African-American audiences, is suing IPG-owned media agency UM, which is accused of misleading and defrauding the plaintiff through ad buys made on behalf of the U.S. Army as part of a minority recruitment push.

The suit, filed late last week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, states that UM (named in the filing as Universal McCann Worldwide) “conspired to defraud and mislead” Urban One by way of what the plaintiff calls a “sham buying agent”: Penn, Good & Associates or PGA (now known as Penngood).

Urban One claims UM used Penngood, an African American-owned agency, as a “puppet” to qualify for hundreds of thousands of dollars in government incentives aimed at encouraging contractors to work with minority-owned companies, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration.

When Penngood was used to buy U.S. Army ads on Urban One’s TV and radio networks, a credit check reportedly showed that the shop had a “poor credit rating and history,” according to the lawsuit. Urban One also says it felt pressured “at the direction of McCann” to accept the ad buys on credit with assurances that payments would eventually come. The lawsuit cites a 2009 email from a UM svp pledging that Penngood had the “financial capacity and integrity to manage the account.”

Penngood then allegedly failed to pay Urban One $930,268.11 in ad placement costs. All told, Urban One says it is owed $1.8 million in damages, plus interest, assorted costs and attorney’s fees.

UM says claims are ‘baseless’

Urban One describes itself as “the largest distributor of urban content in the country,” and plaintiffs in this suit include its cable network, TV One, and Reach Media, which produces national radio shows by celebrities like D.L. Hughley and Al Sharpton.

This is not the first time the company has pursued legal action over its relationship with the Army’s agency partners, a fact UM points to as a sign that this lawsuit will not go in the plaintiff’s favor.

“A related case brought in 2015 by TV One was summarily dismissed in court earlier this year, and we fully believe this case will be dismissed as well, as the claims are baseless,” a UM spokesperson told Adweek.

A separate suit was indeed filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in August 2015 and dismissed, in part, six months ago.

That filing focused on Penngood and Carol H. Williams Advertising, which partnered with the UM organization for more than 10 years to help plan and execute Army recruiting campaigns targeting African-American consumers. The earlier lawsuit accused those two agencies and their principals of breach of contract while naming UM as a third-party defendant.

The first phase of that case ended on Feb. 9, 2018, when Associate Judge John Campbell of the D.C. court granted a summary judgment in favor of the Williams agency and Carol H. Williams herself, stating that “the Williams defendants are not the party to have recourse against.”

But the judge allowed the claims against Penngood and its co-presidents, Clyde Penn and Garrick Good, to proceed. According to court documents, a separate non-jury trial in that matter is scheduled to begin in December.

“Carol has reviewed the allegations in the complaint TV One has filed in federal court in Maryland,” wrote John J. McNutt, counsel for Carol H. Williams Advertising. “In the complaint, TV One included several allegations against Carol related to her role as a subcontractor to McCann on the U.S. Army advertising contract from 2006 to 2017. Many of these unsupported allegations were previously included in a lawsuit TV One filed against Carol in 2015 in D.C. Superior Court. Carol denies the allegations and is proud of her agency’s many years of work on the U.S. Army contract. In February 2018, the judge in the D.C. case rejected TV One’s allegations against Carol and dismissed all of TV One’s claims against Carol. TV One’s allegations against Carol have been refuted in a court of law.”

After that judgment, Urban One went on to hire the law firm of Morris, Manning and Martin and take action against UM last week. The latest suit mentions Carol H. Williams Advertising several times but does not name the agency as a defendant.

Mounting pressure, overdue bills

At the heart of the new lawsuit is Urban One’s claim that it felt pressured by UM to work with its minority-owned agency partner, Penngood, despite UM allegedly knowing that Penngood had “cash flow problems” that would eventually leave it unable to pay its bills, the suit states.

In January 2009, UM tapped Penngood, according to the lawsuit, despite the small agency emerging from a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing only five months before taking on the business. The lawsuit also states that “Garrick Good, one of the principals of PGA, had been involved in approximately a dozen lawsuits prior to McCann engaging PGA as its ‘buying agent.’”

Urban One continued to run Army ads on its cable and radio platforms while extending credit to Penngood thanks to what it calls “the assurances of and a longstanding business relationship with” UM, which allegedly agreed to be “jointly and severally liable for the advertising buys” while “fraudulently misrepresent[ing] the financial status and capabilities” of its buying partner, the lawsuit states.

Penngood’s financial struggles only grew more pronounced with time. Garrick Good filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in late 2012, but Urban One claims that it did not learn until 2017 that UM had “only performed a cursory check” of the agency’s finances and qualifications.

In addition to the nearly $1 million owed to TV One, the lawsuit also states that radio brand Reach and its local division, Radio One, went through similar experiences after expressing concern over Penngood’s finances several years ago. The agency now allegedly owes these two divisions $375,218.60 and $545,000.00, respectively, for uncompensated ads purchased on credit.

A spokesperson for Urban One’s law firm had not provided additional comment at the time of publication. The listed press contact for Penngood has not responded to a request for comment.

The suit comes less than two weeks after the larger McCann organization filed a bid with the U.S. Government Accountability Office to protest its second elimination from the U.S. Army review in just over a year. That review has now been extended until at least mid-November, and the protest also required the government to extend McCann’s contract beyond its expiration date of Sept. 30 this year.

You can view the lawsuit filing in its entirety [at Adweek].

13357: Y&RFP Shenanigans.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Y&R may have won the 2020 U.S. Census account by underbidding rival White advertising agencies by as much as 50%. Hey, the $14 million bid is a mere fraction of WPP Overlord Sir Martin Sorrell’s take-home pay—in fact, it’s a fraction of his annual bonus money. The lowball tactic also means any minority firms inevitably partnering with Y&R will receive even fewer crumbs than normal.

WPP’s Y&R Bid Far Lower Than Rivals for U.S. Census Account

Creative agency won coveted three-year deal with $14 million bid

By Alexandra Bruell

When WPP ’s Y&R announced earlier this year it had won the coveted U.S. Census account, industry executives speculated that the creative agency had come in with a low bid.

Now it’s becoming clear just how low its price was.

A team led by Y&R submitted a proposal for the three-year deal that would cost the government agency about $14 million, far lower than the bids submitted by four other players, which ranged from roughly $25 million to over $30 million, according to people familiar with the matter.

The Census, which is readying a big advertising, media and public relations campaign in its effort to collect data on U.S. citizens for its 2020 report, is estimating a total budget of $415 million to cover its integrated communications contract, according to request for proposals agencies received.

The project will include traditional and digital advertising, media buying, public relations, social media and research, and data and analytics, among other elements.

Y&R declined to comment.

According to a document reviewed by The Wall Street Journal that ranked agency fee proposals by price, Y&R’s team came in the least expensive, followed by teams led by Interpublic Group’s creative shop FCB, Omnicom Group’s DDB, and IPG-owned McCann World Group, as well an Accenture-led team that included people from creative shop Droga5.

Y&R was at the top of the list on the “technical” ranking, a measure of how well agencies could perform the work, according to the document and people close to the process.

Y&R’s low bid raised competitors’ eyebrows, the people said. Agencies often take on business at a discounted rate if they’re looking to create momentum during a slow period, or to do business with a sexy brand. Typically, however, the low bid is only incrementally lower than the others, according to people familiar with agency reviews.

Still, with pricing pressure mounting—from client procurement departments asking agencies to wait longer for payment, to electronic auctions asking agencies to bid down their rates—some agency executives wonder if lowball bidding will become more commonplace.

“Agencies low-bid things all the time, but half as much is pretty drastic,” said Casey Burnett, founder of the agency search consultancy The Burnett Collective. “Sometimes it’s because the agency wants the business as a marque account,” while other times “it’s simply because they didn’t understand the [scope of work]. Sometimes they hope to convince the client to pay more later.”

It’s not immediately clear what inspired Y&R’s bid, or how it plans on structuring the Census account. It’s possible the agency has set up a cost structure that will allow healthy profit margins, despite its relatively low rate.

Y&R, which is no stranger to long-term government contracts, won the multi-year Navy ad contract last year.

For its latest win, the WPP shop will need to pull in resources from various agencies and engage in a hands-on effort that’s unique to the Census. Promoting the Census requires reaching people from various cultures and ethnic backgrounds, and using different media at a hyper-local level, from posters to flyers to mobile apps, according to people familiar with the account.

“Effective and strategic communications with many diverse audiences will be crucial, including everything from educating the public about the process to maximizing response rates,” according to the Census’s request for proposals.

An agency group that understands technology will also be crucial to the Census project, according to the RFP.

Y&R has been in talks with PwC about a partnership on the account, according to people familiar with the matter. Consulting firms like Accenture, Deloitte and PwC have been investing in digital marketing capabilities in the past few years and are now even moving into the creative business, hoping to pitch their technological know-how to marketers. Some ad agencies, meanwhile, have dipped their toes in consulting.

The Y&R team will also include support from WPP shops Burson-Marsteller, Maxus, Bravo, Wunderman and Hogarth, among others, said a spokesman from the U.S. Census. Y&R is also working with a number of small businesses that specialize in reaching niche groups, such as G&G Advertising, which is tasked with reaching American Indian and Alaska Native communities.

13312: Census Senseless Selection.

Advertising Age reported Y&R was picked to be the lead White advertising agency for the 2020 Census. No word yet on which minority shops might be tapped to receive Census crumbs—despite the original RFP stating that the winning agency must have access to “expertise and experience in communicating with and marketing to historically undercounted populations. These populations include such groups as African Americans/Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders.” Of course, the Census didn’t bother counting how the various groups are underrepresented in the halls of Y&R, and apparently doesn’t care that the agency is owned by a holding company based in the U.K. Only in America.

Y&R Tapped as Lead Agency for 2020 Census

WPP Shop Will Help Census Utilize ‘Emerging Technologies’ to Market Its Efforts

By Maureen Morrison

WPP’s Y&R has won the 2020 Census account after a review, according to people familiar with the matter.

The U.S. Census Bureau in late January issued a final RFP, with a projected completion sometime in August. Representatives for the Census, according to people familiar with the process, reached out this morning to agencies involved to let them know that Y&R won. As many as five agencies were finalists.

More than likely, a host of other agencies will be involved, handling media and multicultural marketing, among other disciplines. According to one person familiar with the review, agencies presented partner agencies and subcontractors in the review, though it was not immediately known what agencies would be working in tandem with Y&R.

Representatives for Y&R and the Census Bureau did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The bureau, for the next census, is looking to address marketing differently than it did for the 2010 Census, given how dramatically the media landscape has changed since then.

According to the RFP from January: “The communications industry has changed dramatically since the conduct of the 2010 Census, principally due to changes and advances in technology, communications mechanisms, and consumer expectations. The Internet, wireless technologies, and mobile personal devices have opened new communications channels and media that have empowered consumers with increased connectivity to marketers. The Census Bureau fully intends to harness these emerging technologies and channels as part of the 2020 Census Integrated Communications Contract.”

The RFP also said that “the total estimated value for the full lifecycle of this contract” is about $415 million. It wasn’t clear what the fee would be for the lead agency, or other agencies involved.

One of the Census Bureau’s biggest challenges for each census is getting people to respond—especially those in hard-to-count populations. The RFP said that the winning agency will need to have, either from a subcontractor or itself, “expertise and experience in communicating with and marketing to historically undercounted populations. These populations include such groups as African Americans/Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders.”

The RFP goes on to say that “racial and ethnic group is not the sole indicator of hard-to-count and non-respondent populations. They also tend to be characterized by renters, high unemployment, low education, low income, difficulty reading or writing in English, the young and mobile, the older population, and household crowding, among other factors.”

For the 2010 Census, more than a dozen agencies were contracted to handle the work. Interpublic’s FCB, then called DraftFCB, was the lead agency on the campaign, though other IPG shops were involved, including Asian-American shop IW Group and Jack Morton, an experiential agency. GlobalHue also played a role, creating work aimed at African-Americans.

13066: U.S. Census Senseless…?

Adweek reported advertising agencies will be vying for the U.S. Census contract for 2020 work. In 2010, IPG dominated with Draftfcb taking the lead over other below-the-line and minority shops. It’s a safe bet IPG won’t serve up Campbell Ewald as a contender. But will the U.S. Census Bureau hire a White advertising agency to handle the top role? Or will the governmental client seek a partner whose staff reflects the diversity of the country? If so, they may have to wait until 2079 for a qualified agency to emerge.

Agencies Are About to Start Vying for the $415 Million U.S. Census Contract

Deadline looms for 2020 communications work

By Noreen O’Leary

It’s hard to believe another census count is nearly upon us. For agencies wanting to work on the estimated $415 million 2020 census multi-year contract, RFP responses are due Feb. 22.

This time around the Census Bureau is putting more emphasis on digital technology as the government wants to trim costs through greater use of mobile and social.

“The communications industry has changed dramatically since the conduct of the 2010 census, principally due to changes and advances in technology, communications mechanisms and consumer expectations,” according to the RFP. “The Internet, wireless technologies and mobile personal devices have opened new communications channels and media that have empowered consumers with increased connectivity to marketers. The Census Bureau fully intends to harness these emerging technologies and channels as part of the 2020 census integrated communications contract. …The [agency] contractor [selected] shall use an appropriate mix of communications tools with an emphasis on using new technology.”

The final RFP was issued in late January, and agency selections are expected in August. For the 2010 census, Interpublic agencies heavily dominated the team behind the census advertising. Draftfcb, now FCB, was the creative lead, accompanied by agencies GlobalHue, GlobalHue Latino, D’Exposito & Partners, Allied Media, G+G Advertising, IW Group, Plum Agency, Weber Shandwick, Jack Morton, Scholastic, Initiative and Draftfcb Puerto Rico.

12663: The Dicks At U.S. Census.

New York Post columnist John Crudele published a perspective about the U.S. Census booking Dick Gregory for a Black History Month event. After certain workers took offense to Gregory’s routine, the U.S. Census apologized by stating, “We understand [Gregory’s] comments offended some members of the audience. Gregory’s statement and opinions were his own and do not reflect the Census Bureau’s commitment to an inclusive workplace environment free from discrimination and harassment. … We make every effort to ensure that our external speakers represent diverse viewpoints while also respecting the audience.” Okay, but the bigger U.S. Census joke—which turned out to be offensively ignorant—involved letting Draftfcb lead a multicultural campaign in 2007.

Census Bureau paid controversial Dick Gregory to address workers

By John Crudele

The Census Bureau paid comedian Dick Gregory between $15,000 and $20,000, plus expenses, to address workers at its headquarters in February — and now Census regrets it.

The performer and civil rights activist, who is known to use raw language and racial terms that many find objectionable, spoke during Black History Month. But apparently he offended enough of the workers that Census is revising its policy on outside speakers.

The Gregory situation, which I just found out about last week, is a good example of why there needs to be more oversight over how taxpayer money is spent.

First, let’s listen to Census grovel.

“We understand [Gregory’s] comments offended some members of the audience,” Census said in a statement to me that appears to have been sent to irate workers. “Gregory’s statement and opinions were his own and do not reflect the Census Bureau’s commitment to an inclusive workplace environment free from discrimination and harassment.”

Yeah, yeah, sure. Gregory’s spiel is well known. This wasn’t Jerry Seinfeld they were hiring.

“We make every effort to ensure that our external speakers represent diverse viewpoints while also respecting the audience,” it continued.

Sure, diverse viewpoints!

“We will seek to continue to meet this standard in the future and are thoroughly reviewing our procedures for selecting speakers to ensure their views are appropriate for a federal workplace,” the statement said.

How about this? Don’t have speakers! Don’t spend money unnecessarily! Let your workers go to a comedy club for their entertainment like the rest of us do.

Census didn’t get back to me when I asked how much Gregory was paid. But I learned the range of his fee from Celebrity Talent Promotions, which handles his bookings. Hopefully, Census got a discount.

There is no YouTube video of Gregory’s speech that I could find. But included in Gregory’s nuggets of wisdom was apparently criticism of the “crackers” in Census management for not showing up for the talk.

In case you are wondering, “crackers” have nothing to do with Nabisco.

11870: Hispanics = Gringos?

From The New York Times…

More Hispanics Declaring Themselves White

By Nate Cohn

Hispanics are often described as driving up the nonwhite share of the population. But a new study of census forms finds that more Hispanics are identifying as white.

An estimated net 1.2 million Americans of the 35 million Americans identified in 2000 as of “Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin,” as the census form puts it, changed their race from “some other race” to “white” between the 2000 and 2010 censuses, according to research presented at an annual meeting of the Population Association of America and reported by Pew Research.

The researchers, who have not yet published their findings, compared individual census forms from the 2000 and 2010 censuses. They found that millions of Americans answered the census questions about race and ethnicity differently in 2000 and 2010. The largest shifts were among Americans of Hispanic origin, who are the nation’s fastest growing ethnic group by total numbers.

Race is an immutable characteristic for many white, black and Asian-Americans. It is less clear for Americans of Hispanic origin. The census form asks two questions about race and ethnicity: one about whether individuals are of Hispanic or Latino origin, and another about race. “Hispanics” do not constitute a race, according to the census, and so 37 percent of Hispanics, presumably dissatisfied with options like “white” or “black,” selected “some other race.”

The researchers found that 2.5 million Americans of Hispanic origin, or approximately 7 percent of the 35 million Americans of Hispanic origin in 2000, changed their race from “some other race” in 2000 to “white” in 2010. An additional 1.3 million people switched in the other direction. A noteworthy but unspecified share of the change came from children who weren’t old enough to fill out a form in 2000, but chose for themselves in 2010.

The data provide new evidence consistent with the theory that Hispanics may assimilate as white Americans, like the Italians or Irish, who were not universally considered to be white. It is particularly significant that the shift toward white identification withstood a decade of debate over immigration and the country’s exploding Hispanic population, which might have been expected to inculcate or reinforce a sense of Hispanic identity, or draw attention to divisions that remain between Hispanics and non-Hispanic white Americans. Research suggests that Hispanics who have experienced discrimination are less likely to identify as white.

The data also call into question whether America is destined to become a so-called minority-majority nation, where whites represent a minority of the nation’s population. Those projections assume that Hispanics aren’t white, but if Hispanics ultimately identify as white Americans, then whites will remain the majority for the foreseeable future.

White identification is not necessarily a sign that Hispanics consider themselves white. Many or even most might identify their race as “Hispanic” if it were an explicit option. But white identification may still be an indicator of assimilation. White identifiers are likelier to be second- and third-generation Hispanics than foreign-born and noncitizen Hispanics. They also have higher levels of education and income. The researchers’ data did not show the country of origin of the families of those people who shifted their identification.

The results are a strong sign that fears of a unique “Hispanic challenge,” where Hispanics immigrants might remain as a permanent Spanish-speaking underclass, are overblown.

In that regard, the census numbers are not new: There is mounting evidence that Hispanics are succeeding in American society at a pace similar to that of prior waves of European immigrants.

11305: Free Wi-Fi With Fries.

Did the U.S. Census report on Internet usage by Blacks lead Mickey D’s to decide free Wi-Fi would have targeted appeal?

10838: Census Figures? Go Figure.

News sources reported the U.S. Census projected Whites will no longer be a majority in the U.S. by 2043. Of course, this forecast does not apply to the advertising industry at all, where Census data and common knowledge show Whites will maintain their exclusive positions well beyond the year 3000.

Census: Whites no longer a majority in U.S. by 2043

WASHINGTON (AP) — White people will no longer make up a majority of Americans by 2043.

The new government projection is a year later than previous estimates, made before the impact of the recent economic downturn was known.

The nation continues to grow and become more diverse due to higher birth rates among minorities, but no longer at a torrid pace as immigration wanes.

The total U.S. population should climb to 420 million by 2060, with whites making up 43% Hispanics, currently 17% of the population, will jump to 31%, or nearly 1 in 3 residents. Blacks will make up 14.7%, up slightly.

The point when minority children become the majority is expected to occur in 2019; last year, minorities became the majority among U.S. newborns.

10399: Adios, Negro…?

From The Los Angeles Times…

Census Bureau considers changes to race, ethnicity questions

The U.S. Census Bureau is considering changes in questions it asks Americans about race, in an effort to keep up with evolving perceptions about race and identity.

The bureau released recommendations Wednesday in which it suggested dropping use of the term “Negro” on its questionnaires and counting Hispanics as a single category, regardless of race. The census now defines Hispanic as an ethnicity, not a race, and respondents who say they are of Hispanic origin are also asked to identify their race.

The recommendations were based on research conducted through experimental questions asked of 500,000 households during the 2010 census. The findings showed that many Americans believe the current categories don’t always jibe with their own views of their identity and have led to confusion.

For example, asked to state their race on the 2010 census, more than 19 million people, including millions of Hispanics, chose “some other race,” rather than select from the five offered categories: white, black, Asian, American Indian or Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.

One change proposed by the Census Bureau would simply ask respondents to choose their race or origin and allow them to check a single box next to categories that would include white, black or Hispanic. Another would end the bureau’s use of the controversial term “Negro” as an alternative for black or African American. And a third would add write-in categories to allow those of Middle Eastern or Arab origin to specifically identify themselves, officials said.

Nicholas Jones, chief of the Census Bureau’s racial statistics branch, said the research findings were the first step in a process leading to possible changes for the 2020 census.

Changes to census questions must be approved by Congress.

9971: We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Badges.

From The Los Angeles Times…

Latino or Hispanic? For many Americans, neither feels quite right

A new report suggests that the majority of people of Latin American descent prefer to identify themselves by their countries of origin. The findings shed light on the complexities of identity in a growing community that includes dozens of nationalities.

By Paloma Esquivel, Los Angeles Times

Growing up in the suburbs of Detroit, Helen Iris Torres responded to questions about her identity by telling people she was Puerto Rican. It didn’t matter that schoolbooks referred to her as Hispanic.

Now, as head of an organization that supports women of Latin American heritage, Torres still says she’s a “proud Puerto Rican” but prefers the term Latina, which she says encompasses the larger community of Spanish speakers in the country.

Torres’ quandary is reflected in a new report by the Pew Hispanic Center, which suggests that the majority of people of Latin American descent choose to identify themselves by their countries of origin, over either Latino or Hispanic. When choosing between the latter terms, the majority, 51%, were ambivalent.

The findings shed light on the social and political complexities of identity in a community that is growing but includes dozens of nationalities.

“The notion of a pan-ethnic Hispanic identity is uniquely American,” said Mark Hugo Lopez, a lead author of the report. “Latinos have not fully embraced the terms Hispanic or Latino when it comes to describing themselves.”

Only one-quarter of those polled used the terms Hispanic or Latino most often, while about 21% said they predominantly use the term American. Most of those polled did not see a shared common culture among Latinos — as sometimes is assumed by politicians courting a voting bloc.

The survey of 1,220 Latino adults was conducted in English and Spanish during November and early December.

The term Hispanic was adopted by the government in the 1970s in an attempt to count people from such countries as Mexico, Cuba and the nations in Central and South America. But many whose lineage traces to those countries, particularly in Southwestern parts of the United States, have never felt an affinity for the term.

“It was a word that was used to identify Spanish-speaking people in the census,” said Haydee Cervantes, who works for the Chicano/a Latino/a Arts and Humanities program at UC San Diego. “It’s a word that was given to us.”

Cervantes said she chooses to identify as Chicana partly because of the political implications of the term, which was embraced by Mexican American student activists in the 1960s.

In the 1990s, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget added the term Latino to government data. But that term has also not been fully embraced, the report’s authors said.

For many Latinos, identity is fluid and can change with experience and context. In a larger group it might make sense to use a broader term, while in one-on-one conversations people often try to be specific, Torres said.

Some young Latino immigrants have embraced an altogether new term of identification.

Delia Arriaga and Alma Castrejon, who were both born in Mexico but came to the U.S. at young ages, said the term Mexican never quite reflected their experience.

“I used to identify as Chicana, but now I really don’t use that term,” Castrejon said. “I was born in Mexico, but I don’t identify as Mexican, or Latina or Hispanic. A lot of times when I talk to people I just say, ‘I’m undocumented.’”

Arriaga said she often calls herself an “undocumented American.”

“I am fully American,” she said. “I’ve been living in the United States my whole life. I am of Latin heritage but I haven’t been able to experience it. I’ve always experienced the American version of what being a Latina or Hispanic is.”

Nearly half of those polled said they consider themselves a “typical American,” while the same percentage said they are “very different from the typical American.”

Still, nearly all said opportunity for advancement in the U.S. is better than in the country of their ancestors. And nearly 80% of those who migrated here said that if they had to do it over, they would come again to the U.S.

9773: BHM 2012—Adweek, Draftfcb & U.S. Census.

Lincoln Steffens pointed out that Adweek, Draftfcb and the U.S. Census Bureau teamed up to celebrate Black History Month with a story titled, “All About African Americans Today.” Draftfcb and the U.S. Census Bureau, incidentally, share an advertising agency-client relationship—and Adweek is apparently starving for original content—which may explain the publication of what essentially feels like a lazy press release. The celebratory factoids include 18 percent of Blacks holding a bachelor’s degree and a 27.4 percent poverty rate. Oh Happy Day. No mention of the number of Blacks working on Madison Avenue.

All About African Americans Today

Census Bureau releases facts and figures for Black History Month

In celebration of Black History Month, the U.S. Census Bureau has released a series of facts and stats about the African American population aggregated from recent studies.

42 million – The number of people who identified as Black, either alone or in combination with one or more other races, in the 2010 Census. They made up 13.6 percent of the total U.S. population. The Black population grew by 15.4 percent from 2000 to 2010.

65.7 million – The projected Black population of the United States (including those of more than one race) for July 1, 2050. On that date, according to the projection, Blacks would constitute 15 percent of the nation’s total population.

3.3 million – The Black population in New York state, which led all states in 2010. The other nine states in the top 10 were Florida, Texas, Georgia, California, North Carolina, Illinois, Maryland, Virginia and Ohio.

38 percent – Percent of Mississippi’s total population that was Black in 2010. Mississippi led the nation in this category followed by Louisiana (33 percent), Georgia (32 percent), Maryland (31 percent), South Carolina (29 percent) and Alabama (27 percent).

2.2 million – People who identified as Black in New York City, the city with the largest African American population. It was followed by Chicago; Philadelphia; Detroit; Houston; Memphis, Tenn.; Baltimore; Los Angeles; Washington; and Dallas.

84.3 percent – Percent of the total population in Detroit, who identified as Black, which is the highest percentage nationally.

2.4 million – Number of Black military veterans in the United States in 2010.

82 percent – Among Blacks 25 and older, the percentage with a high school diploma or higher in 2010.

18 percent – Percentage of Blacks 25 and older who had a bachelor’s degree or higher in 2010.

1.5 million – Among Blacks 25 and older, the number who had an advanced degree in 2010.

2.9 million – Number of Blacks enrolled in college in 2010, a 1.7 million increase since 1990.

11.1 million – The number of Blacks who voted in the 2010 congressional election, an increase from 11 percent of the total electorate in 2006 to 12 percent in 2010.

55 percent – Turnout rate in the 2008 presidential election for the 18- to 24-year-old citizen Black population, an 8 percentage point increase from 2004. Blacks had the highest turnout rate in this age group.

65 percent – Turnout rate among Black citizens regardless of age in the 2008 presidential election, up about 5 percentage points from 2004. Looking at voter turnout by race and Hispanic origin, non-Hispanic whites and Blacks had the highest turnout levels.

$32,068 – The annual median income of Black households in 2010, a decline of 3.2 percent from 2009.

27.4 percent – Poverty rate in 2010 for Blacks.

62.5 percent – Among households with a Black householder, the percentage that contained a family. There were 9.4 million Black family households.

1.3 million – Number of Black grandparents who lived with their own grandchildren younger than 18. Of this number, 47.6 percent were also responsible for their care.

44.2 percent – Nationally, the percentage of households with a householder who was Black who lived in owner-occupied homes.