Showing posts with label wsj. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wsj. Show all posts

Monday, May 11, 2026

17472: WSJ On WPP—A Failure To Communicate.

 

The LinkedIn post depicted above called out Wall Street Journal content spotlighting WPP CEO Cindy Rose, questioning the article headline: Advertising’s First Female CEO Isn’t Afraid to Fail.

 

The post author felt the headline was misleading. While the article clarified Rose is the first female CEO of a holding company—or single White operating company—the author believed the net impression positions Rose as the first-ever female CEO in Adland.

 

The author asserts Mary Wells Lawrence earned the title of first female CEO of a White advertising agency by co-founding Wells Rich Greene in 1966, and the iconic leader has been followed by countless female CEOs in Adland over the years.

 

Initial comments ranged from White men in agreement to White women seemingly expressing passive offense with the author.

 

Of course, there’s no mention of Barbara Gardner Proctor, founder of the first advertising agency owned and operated by a Black woman—a feat achieved in 1970. Ditto snubbing for Caroline R. Jones of Zebra Associates and Mingo-Jones Advertising. Carol H. Williams is a living legend. And there are many other invisible women of color throughout the history of Adland—all of whom contributed waaaay more trailblazing accomplishments to the industry than Rose.

 

Yet the author and commentators arguably missed a bigger issue with the WSJ headline.

 

That is, over 98,000 WPP drones will see their leader isn’t afraid to fail—and will likely fire thousands of them to achieve resounding failure.

Tuesday, October 28, 2025

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.”

Saturday, January 15, 2022

15679: Subscription Rats, Er, Rates.

 

Advertising Age offers an introductory subscription rate of $134 per year. Adweek print and digital goes for $199 per year. Harvard Business Review delivers Premium content for $15 per month. The Wall Street Journal presents print and digital for $49.99 per month. In contrast, Digiday charges $395 annually—or two years for $649…? Gee, how much is the publisher paying confessors for content?

Saturday, November 20, 2021

15611: Overreaction Of The Week.

 

The Wall Street Journal running this ad on the day of the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict seems like a bad decision…

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

14491: Examining Ex-Overlord Sir Martin Sorrell’s Expensive Expense Reports.

The Wall Street Journal reported WPP requested ex-Overlord Sir Martin Sorrell repay roughly $219,000 in expenses—which is definitely not peanuts—that included covering ski trips, travel for his family and items for his swanky New York apartment. Hey, the allegation that Sorrell used company funds to pay a prostitute might be true after all. Of course, it’s just chump change for someone slated to collect a $26 million exit package from the White holding company—which is roughly $26 million more than the soon-to-be-laid-off 2,500 WPP employees can expect to receive.

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

14474: “Male, Pale & Yale” Partners With “Male, Pale & Stale.”

Adweek reported on how The&Partnership is allegedly making the Wall Street Journal a less “male, pale and Yale” publication. Hey, that sentiment should go over as well with the WSJ audience as the JWT London creative department. Plus, it’s a pretty hypocritical statement coming from a predominately White advertising agency connected to a White holding company. Sorry, but Wall Street and Madison Avenue hardly represent the roads to diversity.

Wednesday, April 04, 2018

14094: WPP WSJ WTF.

The Wall Street Journal reported on the latest WPP scandal and made a statement that demands examination. In reference to Sir Martin Sorrell, the news source wrote, “Long-regarded as an oracle of the ad industry…” Huh? Perhaps the WSJ proofreaders didn’t catch the typo, and the writers actually intended one of the following:

“Long-regarded as an odious little jerk of the ad industry…”

“Long-regarded as an orangutan of the ad industry…”

“Long-regarded as an Orc of the ad industry…”

“Long-regarded as an Orca the Killer Whale of the ad industry…”

“Long-regarded as an organ grinder’s monkey of the ad industry…”

“Long-regarded as an orgy voyeur of the ad industry…”

“Long-regarded as an orifice of the ad industry…”

“Long-regarded as an Orkin Man of the ad industry…”

“Long-regarded as an ornery ogre of the ad industry…”

“Long-regarded as an Orwellian oaf of the ad industry…”

Clearly, the WSJ editorial board must review and revise the published story pronto.

WPP Is Looking at CEO Martin Sorrell’s Possible Misuse of Assets and Allegations of Improper Behavior

Questions come as advertising giant is facing cost-cutting pressures from clients and stepped-up competition from Google, Facebook

By Suzanne Vranica and Nick Kostov

The board of advertising giant WPP WPP 0.36% PLC is looking into whether longtime Chief Executive Martin Sorrell misused company assets, according to people familiar with the matter.

In addition, the board is also looking into allegations of improper personal behavior by Mr. Sorrell, one of the people said.

A WPP spokesman on Tuesday confirmed in a statement that it has appointed an independent counsel to probe “an allegation of personal misconduct” against Mr. Sorrell. He said the amounts involved weren’t material to the company.

In an internal memo to top WPP executives, the company said it isn’t in a position to share further details about the ongoing probe. “The message for our people and clients is one of business as usual within our operating companies and client teams. Our work for clients is unaffected and continues uninterrupted,” the memo said.

The questions come at a difficult moment for WPP, the world’s largest advertising company. Increased competition from new rivals and pressure from big marketing clients to cut costs have taken a toll on financial results. The company’s recent lackluster performance has contributed to tensions between Mr. Sorrell—a towering figure at WPP—and the board, people familiar with the matter said.

Mr. Sorrell didn’t respond to multiple emails and text messages seeking comment.

Mr. Sorrell, 73 years old, has been at the helm of WPP since 1986, helping to transform a little-known U.K. manufacturer of wire shopping carts called Wire & Plastic Products that he had acquired into a global advertising empire.

Today, WPP is a massive advertising holding company whose units include blue-chip creative agencies like J. Walter Thompson and Young & Rubicam as well as powerhouse media-buyer GroupM. WPP, based in London, works for some of the world’s biggest marketers, from Ford Motor Co. to Unilever NV.

Long-regarded as an oracle of the ad industry, Mr. Sorrell, a graduate of Cambridge University and Harvard Business School, used his finance background to build scale and centralize key functions like ad buying—a winning strategy that was emulated by others in the business.

In recent years, though, traditional ad-industry players have come under considerable pressure from companies such as Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Facebook Inc., which dominate the roughly $230 billion global digital advertising market. The tech giants have the ability to work directly with advertisers, cutting out agencies. And they have tightly guarded their data on performance of ad campaigns, frustrating agency executives who aren’t able to follow through in the way their marketing clients demand.

WPP has tried to address its problems by streamlining its complicated organization and coming up with ways for clients to work more efficiently with agency staffers. The going has been tough. In its most recent quarter, WPP logged its worst performance since the financial crisis, as net sales fell slightly compared with a year earlier, spooking investors who had been expecting signs of a recovery. The firm said it is setting budgets for 2018 on the assumption of no growth in revenue and net sales. As a result, WPP’s stock has been underperforming. It has fallen about 35% over the past 12 months.

Mr. Sorrell’s pay too has been a flashpoint, putting pressure on the board to reduce his compensation after a series of pay revolts by shareholders. Mr. Sorrell received a long-term bonus of £10 million ($14 million) in company shares for 2017, a significant drop from the £41.6 million in shares that he was awarded a year before. The share award makes up most of Mr. Sorrell’s compensation, but his total pay will also include his salary, a short-term bonus, pension payments and other benefits.

WPP has never publicly disclosed succession plans, leading investors to demand more clarity on who would lead the company if Mr. Sorrell were to leave. Analysts have speculated that internal contenders for the role include Wunderman’s global CEO Mark Read, Kantar boss Eric Salama and WPP chief transformation officer Lindsay Pattison.

Alexandra Bruell contributed to this article

Sunday, March 20, 2016

13130: Mad Ave’s Murky Mischief.

Why the Picture of Diversity on Madison Avenue Is So Murky: Companies’ varying reporting methods make it tough to discern the racial and gender makeup of the ad industry” are the headline and subhead of a lengthy report from The Wall Street Journal. There’s nothing new presented in the article—including the figures showing Black representation in the industry has actually declined in recent years. Guess the minority scholarships, internships, high schools, inner-city outreach programs and ADCOLOR® awards aren’t working after all. But you’d never know it, thanks to the smokescreens, diverted diversity, Chief Diversity Officers, EEO-1 data dodging and other assorted schemes Madison Avenue executes to conceal the truth.

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Essay 4328

From DiversityInc.com (responding to WSJ perspective presented in Essay 4326)…

------------------------------------

The Wall Street Journal Claims ‘The Death of Diversity’

By Barbara Frankel

Today’s Wall Street Journal editorial page argues that research from Harvard professor Dr. Robert Putnam proves “The Death of Diversity.” That’s not what Dr. Putnam said. In a study that has received significant media attention, he found that social capital in the form of neighborhood friendships and political involvement has been diminished by racial/ethnic diversity in communities.

Dr. Putnam’s research is solid and proves the obvious societal point that people are tribal and gravitate toward those who look like them. But a thorough examination of his study shows that he finds in the long run that immigration and diversity immensely benefit U.S. society both economically and socially. In reference to business, Dr. Putnam states unequivocally that most studies of work groups “find that diversity fosters creativity” and that there is “powerfully summarized evidence that diversity (especially intellectual diversity) produces much better, faster problem-solving.”

Point-by-Point Rebuttal

The Wall Street Journal column, written by Daniel Henninger, deputy editor of the Journal’s editorial page, is not the first newspaper or opinion writer to discuss Dr. Putnam’s study since it came out in June. Here’s what The Wall Street Journal wrote and our responses, based on a thorough examination of Dr. Putnam’s research and DiversityInc’s own research.

• WSJ writes: “Now comes word that diversity as an ideology may be dead, or not worth saving.”

DiversityInc response: This is not what Dr. Putnam says in any way. He writes in the study: “Increased immigration and diversity are not only inevitable, but over the long run they are also desirable. Ethnic diversity is, on balance, an important social asset, as the history of my own country demonstrates.”

• WSJ writes: “Colleagues and diversity advocates, disturbed at what was emerging from the study, suggested alternative explanations. Prof. Putnam and his team re-ran the data every which way from Sunday and the result was always the same: Diverse communities may be yeasty and even creative, but trust, altruism and community cooperation fail.”

DiversityInc response: Again, the efficacy of Dr. Putnam’s study and data is not in dispute. Dr. Putnam does not say that “trust, altruism and community cooperation fail” but that there needs to be a greater effort to create “shared identities.” He writes: “Successful immigrant societies create new forms of social solidarity … by constructing new, more encompassing identities. Thus, the central challenge for modern, diversifying societies is to create a new, broader sense of ‘we.’” He cites the historic way immigrants came to the United States, “hunkered down,” and eventually changed the culture of the country itself as they became part of the mainstream.

• WSJ writes: “The ‘antis’ [anti-immigration proponents] believe the Putnam study hammers the final intellectual nail in the coffin of immigration and diversity.”

DiversityInc response: This is exactly the opposite of what Dr. Putnam intends. He writes in the study: “The weight of the evidence suggests that the net effect of immigration is to increase national income … In short, immigration and multicultural diversity have powerful advantages for both sending and receiving countries.”

• WSJ writes: “The diversity ideologues deserve whatever ill tidings they get. They’re the ones who weren’t willing to persuade the public of diversity’s merits, preferring to turn ‘diversity’ into a political and legal hammer to compel compliance.”

DiversityInc response: As participation in The DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity® survey shows, corporations recognize the business benefits of diversity and are increasingly using diversity as the competitive differentiator in their direct lines of business. This is not compliance; this is good business (317 companies participated last year, up more than 100 percent over the last three years).

• WSJ writes: “The first chart offered in the Putnam study depicts inexorably rising rates of immigration in many nations. The idea that the U.S. can wave into effect a 10-year ‘time out’ on immigration flows is as likely as King Canute commanding the tides to recede.”

DiversityInc response: We agree that the flow of immigration is inevitable. It’s also highly desirable since this nation is facing a serious gap in workers, and immigrants have driven 47 percent of U.S. work-force growth since 2000. New immigrants and their children will account for 100 percent of U.S. work-force growth between 2010 and 2030, according to the Population Reference Bureau. For more on immigrants’ crucial role in the U.S. economy, see the September 2007 issue of DiversityInc magazine, out soon.

About the Study

Dr. Putnam conducted his research in 2000 in conjunction with the U.S. Census Bureau. He had a sample size of about 30,000 people across the United States. People in 41 different communities from Los Angeles and Chicago to small towns and rural areas were surveyed and sorted into the same classifications used by the Census Bureau—non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic and Asian. A national expert on civic engagement, Dr. Putnam’s goal was to examine whether racial/ethnic diversity impacted social networks, which he believes are major indicators of civic well-being.

Dr. Putnam’s research, published in the journal “Scandinavian Political Studies”, found that all people living in racially mixed communities had a higher tendency to “hunker down” and become more isolated from their neighbors and the civic process. His research showed they volunteer less, work on community projects less often, and register to vote less.

[Click on the essay title above to view more sources via links at DiversityInc.com.]

Essay 4326


[From The Wall Street Journal.]