MultiCultClassics

17602: More Amateurish Clubbing Of Callaway And Good Good Golf.

2026-09-16T00:22:10.855-05:00

MediaPost published yet another perspective swinging at Callaway and Good Good Golf for their misogynistic marketing.

The author insisted the campaign “needs to be studied by anyone in the ad industry.”

Um, not really. There’s nothing new about the cultural cluelessness, circumstances, or root causes displayed by Callaway and Good Good Golf. Unfortunately, the concept and execution fortify a major stereotype about golf; ie, the game is dominated by White men.

The author’s recommendation involves four questions that should have been asked before greenlighting the concept.

Um, not really. Questions should have been asked and answered when writing the brief. And the concept should have been screened against the brief.

Contrary to the author’s contention that the scenario says something about creator campaigns, the issue is more basic.

First, experience, discipline, and mastery of craft are critical for success—it has nothing to do with the titles of anyone behind the production. In today’s arena, creator does not translate to creative director.

Second, insular and exclusive minds generate ignorant ideas. Full stop.

What The Good Good-Callaway Fallout Should Teach Brands About Creator Campaigns

By Kari O’Neill, Op-Ed Contributor

Good Good’s Callaway campaign, which features Good Good co-founder Garrett Clark running down and aggressively tackling female professional golfer Alexis Miestowski to stop her from grabbing his new Good Good-Callaway driver, needs to be studied by anyone in the ad industry.

This is a profound example of a mistake in creative strategy. The allure of content creators is huge, but brands need to remain hyper-aware of what concepts are strategically sound for their brand.

What Good Good said inspired the campaign. Good Good may defend the ad by saying it was a parody of the movie Obsession, where the main character buys a supernatural toy that grants him his wish to make his crush fall in love with him — to the point of unsettling horror. Good Good probably stood up in front of executives and claimed that’s how good the driver is — that the audience would be obsessed with it.

Unfortunately, the response has been the exact opposite, with many calling out its use of domestic violence against women for entertainment. Amidst the backlash, even Clark admitted, it was “a super dumb ad concept, terrible ad in general. Not the greatest idea.”

Here’s what Callaway needed to ask Good Good before green-lighting the concept.

Is this pop culture reference relevant for the brand?

One clear blindspot for Good Good was likely assuming what is popular in its own social circles may not be relevant to Callaway’s audience. Asking if Obsession was in the movie zeitgeist or something the masses would relate to should have been the primary question posed of the concept. Would the ad still resonate if the audience didn’t know about Obsession? Given that Obsession was released in May 2026 nationally and in the summer, a key risk is easily seen that the ad’s reference back to the movie likely would not be top of mind.

Does this reinforce or add to a brand’s story?

Additionally, a parody can be extremely effective, but only if translated conceptually well from the original creative into an exciting, authentic brand story. In Good Good’s concept, would the target audience see themselves in the story of the parody? Do most people see themselves in a horror film? Probably not. That, in and of itself, should have killed the concept.

Is this the right feeling for the brand?

Is this ominous feeling the right one Callaway wants people to walk away with after being introduced to this new driver? While the sound design itself clearly is inspired by horror films, it’s clear that the music alludes to harm while being played over an image of a woman being tackled to the ground. Don’t let an internally-focused haze mask the inappropriateness of the concept.

Who has the power in the story?

Even if this driver is targeted only to a male audience (which it probably isn’t, but let’s pretend), why did the person tackled have to be a woman? Strategically, what’s the advantage in that versus a man? The answer: absolutely nothing and worse. The hovering over her body while threatening her takes it even further from the corner of potentially funny to utterly unacceptable.

Because cancel culture is always a risk in the world of creators and brands, brands need to be aware of power dynamics, whether its gender, race, or sexual orientation, among many others.

The fallout certainly is not what anyone intended or wanted. According to Front Office Sports, three people, including Good Good’s vice president of brand marketing, Jeffrey Lefkovits have been fired. Good Good has lost its sponsorships from Callaway, its PGA Tour event title sponsorship, and its Golf Channel show, Big Break x Good Good.

Dick’s Sporting Goods and Golf Galaxy also pulled Good Good merch off shelves. This is a critical lesson for all brands to take a step back and ensure the right questions are being asked of a creator’s concept. Not enough questioning strategically could be the difference between an exciting launch and a brand nightmare.

17601: On Polluting The World With Mediocrity.

2026-09-15T00:22:24.171-05:00

The Marketing Dive spotlighted Coca-Cola’s “The World Will Wait” campaign, revealing the lame concept creators as WPP Open X, led by Grey, supported by Ogilvy, WPP Production, and WPP Media.

Tactics are running globally, except in the US—so, the whole world will wait to possibly see it all.

In the not-too-distant-past real world, such mediocre work would not qualify WPP to win—let alone retain—Coke business.

Coke asks busy Gen Z, millennials to log off for quality meal time

A new global integrated campaign spans a pair of brand films, out-of-home ads and digital activations that champion shared meals.

By Peter Adams

Dive Brief:

• Coca-Cola is encouraging young consumers to slow down and unplug in a new integrated campaign that positions the soft drink as a pairing for shared meals and will roll out globally, except in the U.S., according to a press release.

• “The World Will Wait” depicts busy Gen Z and millennials who miss out on important bonding, including family dinner time, due to work and other tasks before being reminded of what matters most. The concept comes to life in a pair of videos, out-of-home advertising and digital activations.

• In addition, Coke is enlisting influencers on a program that takes a page from the term AFK, or “away from keyboard,” which is popular in gaming. Creator partners on the effort will nudge consumers to put their phones down and live more in the moment.

Dive Insight:

Coke is emphasizing the emotional value of setting aside time to bond over meals as the brand tries to shore up a positioning as a pairing with food. “The World Will Wait” is targeted at Gen Z and millennials who are entering life stages, like juggling a career and young kids, where it can be more difficult to strike a work-life balance.

“In a world that constantly demands our attention, we’ve observed a growing tension among our consumers — especially younger generations — who truly desire genuine connection but often feel overwhelmed by the urgent pressures of daily life,” Arnab Roy, president of the global category at Coca‑Cola, said in a statement. “‘The World Will Wait’ is designed to inspire us and remind everyone that some moments are simply too important to postpone.”

The hero ad for the campaign shows a family that settles down for a home cooked meal only to realize dad is absent. When his son goes to check on him, the dad is cooped up in a dark office room and hidden behind a laptop screen, where he wordlessly signals he is still occupied with work. Later, the dad discovers a family portrait drawn by his son that shows him in the same light — face obfuscated by the demands of his job — which spurs him to log off and join the next gathering.

OOH ads carry a similar theme, bearing copy like “Laundry can wait. Fried Chicken & Coca‑Cola can’t” and “No one ever said ‘this meal could have been an email.’” In a twist on the tactic, Coke is also deploying social media influencers to ask people to set aside their screens to engage in quality time in real life. Digital elements will unlock rewards tied to the meals-forward messaging.

“The World Will Wait,” which is running globally but not in the U.S., was developed by WPP Open X, led by the Grey agency and supported by Ogilvy, WPP Production and WPP Media.

Marketing around food has been in focus for Coke this year. An effort that rolled out in the spring enlisted the CPG’s wide range of U.S. food service partners, including Domino’s, Popeyes and Wendy’s, to show how Coke goes well with a variety of meals. “And a Coke” followed a yearslong platform from Pepsi that argues the soft drink rival is actually the superior meal pairing. “Food Deserves Pepsi” features guerilla marketing-style campaigns where undercover Pepsi agents storm into places like barbecues and fast-food chains to swap out other soda brands with PepsiCo’s flagship offering.

The Coca-Cola Company saw net revenues rise 7% to $13.4 billion in Q2 and raised its full-year outlook around the earnings report last week. Coke commanded the No. 1 share of voice during the FIFA World Cup, which it sponsors, thanks to an advertising blitz that included heavy digital, social and creator activations. The campaign around the soccer tournament contributed to a 5% boost in volume growth for the namesake Coke brand, the company said.

17600: More Dizzying Dispatches From The Cola Wars.

2026-09-14T00:07:47.932-05:00

Advertising Age reported WPP is primed to win The Coca-Cola Company global media, data, and technology review.

Although as previously noted by this blog, the “victory” is mostly the result of Publicis Groupe nabbing PepsiCo global media duties. That is, the single White operating company claims the Coke prize by virtue of a prime contender dropping out.

According to Ad Age, WPP will not participate in the upcoming review for Coke North America media chores—although the trade publication previously identified the global flaming dumpster as a participant—which are being phased out of Publicis Groupe, who took the business from WPP last year.

The dizzying antics are likely driving people to drink. But not drink Coke or Pepsi products.

WPP is set to win Coca-Cola’s global agency review

By Ewan Larkin and Brian Bonilla

WPP is set to win Coca-Cola Co.’s global media, data and technology review and will not participate in the food and beverage giant’s forthcoming North America media pitch, according to people familiar with the matter.

The decision comes nearly five years after Coca-Cola hired WPP for creative, media, data and marketing technology across its 200 or so brands, setting up a bespoke unit called Open X. In early 2025, WPP lost its grip on a significant chunk of that business when Coca-Cola Co. hired Publicis Groupe for its North America media account. WPP continues to handle Coca-Cola’s global creative and PR.

WPP’s retention was expected by many after Publicis Groupe, which it had been competing against for the business, agreed to take over global media duties for PepsiCo. The French holding company’s decision prompted Coca-Cola to launch a review of its media account in North America, where Publicis is the incumbent, Ad Age first reported this week.

Coca-Cola and WPP declined to comment.

Coca-Cola has also been in discussions with Omnicom and Dentsu about the North America media business. Dentsu already works with the company in Japan and Korea, which were excluded from the global review.

PepsiCo last week announced it had moved its global media to Publicis from Omnicom without a formal pitch, relocating one of the industry’s most coveted accounts. PepsiCo spent $1.7 billion on global net media in 2025, according to COMvergence, making it a significant account for Omnicom to lose. Omnicom “remains a critical strategic partner across many of our marketing drivers, from creative to sports and PR,” PepsiCo stated.

17599: On Adland Analysts Seeing Industry Shifts And Shits.

2026-09-13T13:04:07.210-05:00

MediaPost presented more common sense posing as color commentary on the stunning PepsiCo media shift.

A spotlighted analyst provided obvious insights such as:

“…[O]ne can reasonably assume that pricing was a major factor.”

“…[M]arketers are focused on price and performance over transparency and control.”

“…[T]he loss could have more significant repercussions as it may lead to either more aggressive efforts with non-transparent trading activities, more significant investments in new capabilities or both.”

“…[M]any hundreds of people at Omnicom [are] likely to be laid off.”

Sorry, but delivering duh as expert opinion warrants layoffs at consultancies and analyst firms.

Analyst Sees Industry Shifts In The Wake Of PepsiCo’s Media Move

By Steve McClellan

Omnicom’s stock remains down about 6% since news broke last week that one of its biggest clients—PepsiCo—abruptly shifted its entire media account to Publicis Groupe without a formal review. Omnicom ran the account for 20-plus years.

According to the latest figures from COMvergence, Pepsi spent an estimated $1.7 billion on media in 2025. Of that total, Publicis had already been handling about $540 million, mostly attributable to the $500 million of spending in the Asia Pacific region.

Omnicom had about two thirds of the business, including the $780 million U.S. market.

PepsiCo has not explained specifically what led to the shift. But according to a rundown by analyst and marketing consultant Madison And Wall, “one can reasonably assume that pricing was a major factor.”

Which isn’t a big surprise, given M&W’s premise that generally, “marketers are focused on price and performance over transparency and control.”

According to M&W’s analysis, PepsiCo accounted for about 2.4% of Omnicom’s gross revenue last year—or approximately $400 million, which includes creative, media and other services. The lost media assignment probably accounts for under $100 million in gross revenue “unless principal-based trading was already a significant component of the existing relationship.”

While a nine-figure revenue loss is clearly a blow, Omnicom’s sheer size mitigates it to some extent. It’s a $26-billion-plus revenue company thanks to its acquisition of IPG last year.

The PepsiCo media loss could be made up for “in many ways,” per M&W. Strategically, the firm added, “the loss could have more significant repercussions as it may lead to either more aggressive efforts with non-transparent trading activities, more significant investments in new capabilities or both.”

And to the extent that non-transparent activities helped Publicis offer better pricing to PepsiCo, similar tactics are likely to expand industrywide, M&W surmises.

The firm also believes there’s a high likelihood that WPP will retain its $1.7 billion Coca-Cola media account, currently in review, and likely win back TCC’s $800 million North America business, which shifted to Publicis in 2025.

The PepsiCo shift will affect jobs with “many hundreds of people at Omnicom likely to be laid off,” says M&W. The good news: Many of those same people will likely migrate to Publicis, along with the PepsiCo business.

17598: On WPP Production Triple BS.

2026-09-13T12:09:51.241-05:00

MediaPost reported WPP Production aims to be the go-to vendor—and exclusive vendor—for every client served by the global flaming dumpster.

One controversial point involves the intentional goal to avoid standard triple bidding by offering three bids from enterprises within the WPP Production network.

In other words, the single White operating company theory is bullshit. WPP remains a confederacy of companies competing amongst themselves for billable hours—or outcomes-based remuneration.

Plus, it’s highly unlikely WPP would ever allow one enterprise to low-bid against sister firms. The scenario invites a rigged bidding system, whereby clients might be encouraged to choose a vendor sneakily pre-selected by WPP.

It all inspires a new tagline for WPP Production: From those wonderful folks who gave you a global crime scheme in media.

On a sidenote, the MediaPost report was illustrated with a metaphorical image of a funnel (depicted above). A more appropriate object would’ve been a toilet.

WPP Production, APA Lock Horns Over Triple Bids

By Steve McClellan

WPP Production is urging clients to do all of their production work with the holding company—thereby avoiding outsourcing to independent production houses-- and at least one production trade group says WPP’s stand is essentially an assault on “the free market in commercials production.”

Leaked internal documents from the holding company’s production arm state that "Our goal is to avoid traditional commercial triple bidding by proving the value of a centralized partnership by positioning WPP Production as the default, trusted partner.”

Triple bidding is the standard urged by trade groups like Association of Independent Commercial Producers (AICP) in the U.S. and the Advertising Producers Association (APA) in the UK.

The leaked documents suggest a way that WPP can circumvent the commercial bid process:

“If a client or creative team requires triple bidding to assess different options, we should evaluate if WPP Production can provide all three bids internally from the same or different markets. We can satisfy this need by offering three different production approaches, locations, and director treatments within the same country or within the region—keeping the work entirely within WPP Production.”

Steve Davies, CEO of the APA, issued a response that in part reads, “This is a serious threat to the free market in commercials production — and to the independent production, editing and post companies within it — but only if clients don’t see through it. I think they will.”

“Professionalism means putting clients’ interests ahead of your own. WPP has effectively announced it’s doing the opposite,” Davies asserted.

The triple bid, he added, is central to the collaborative system between agencies and production companies that enables “great work.”

WPP Production took issue with the APA’s assessment.

“Any suggestion that WPP Production misleads clients or undermines fair competition is fundamentally wrong,” the firm responded. “Selectively quoting from a comprehensive document doesn’t fairly reflect what is a completely transparent process.

“We respect competitive bidding and work with independent production companies, always adhering to client contracts and procurement requirements. We make decisions with clients, helping them find the right solution for each brief and considering WPP capabilities alongside specialist partners.”

17597: On Omnicom Experiencing PTSD (PepsiCo Termination Shockingly Delivered).

2026-09-12T10:28:43.725-05:00

Digiday reported on Omnicom conducting a post mortem after being dumped by PepsiCo sans formal review or advance notice.

Expect the final analysis report to succinctly read: WTF.

‘Certainly a disappointment’: Omnicom CFO’s verdict on losing PepsiCo to Publicis

By Seb Joseph

Omnicom’s CFO is still trying to get his head around what went wrong. It’s been a little over a week since the holdco lost one of its longest running clients to Publicis. He called the loss “disappointing” and “unfortunate.” Now, he and the rest of the C-suite are doing a post-mortem to figure out why it happened.

Speaking at the Goldman Sachs’ Communacopia and Technology Conference earlier today, Phil Angelastro gave a sobering take on PepsiCo’s decision to walk away after more than 25 years.

“The Pepsi situation is an unfortunate one,” he said. “It’s certainly a disappointment from our perspective — you cannot sugarcoat it.”

The comments all but confirm that this move blindsided Omnicom’s execs. Holdco bosses like Angelastro usually see this kind of switch coming. Sources with knowledge of the matter said his team didn’t, and has spent the past week trying to work out why. Why would PepsiCo after all those years walk away from Omnicom without even giving it the chance to fight for it? Speculation has been rife. Was it because PepsiCo’s CMO had a relationship with Publicis in a previous role? Or maybe the advertiser simply wasn’t impressed with whatever Omnicom was pitching in the wake of the IPG acquisition.

Whatever the reason, Omnicom will want it nailed down fast.

“We are doing a detailed kind of deconstruction of how it happened and what we should have been doing differently to prevent it from happening,” Angelastro said at the conference. “We are not completed with that process but we are going to learn some lessons from this, and certainly we are going to take them very seriously.”

In short, he said the holdco isn’t looking for excuses during this analysis. The aim, Angelastro continued, is to do a root cause analysis so that we can improve the business and our processes going forward.” That matters most for holding onto what’s left of the PepsiCo relationship since Omnicom still handles the company’s PR, creative and some sports marketing.

It could also help the holdco get ahead of other CMOs who might be watching PepsiCo’s move and wondering if they should follow suit. Those clients will want to know what happened and whether it changes anything for them. Needless to say Angelastro has some tough questions in the weeks ahead.

“We don’t think it’s going to have a significant impact on the business going forward when we get to 2027 and our expectations,” the ad exec said. “There is still quite a bit of time between now and ‘27 and we will be aggressively pursuing new business as we always do.”

His confidence lines up with the numbers, even if the underlying figures come from outside estimates rather than Omnicom’s own disclosures. According to ComVergence, PepsiCo’s core global media spend sits at roughly $1.8 billion. Madison and Wall estimates Omnicom’s actual fee revenue from that business at closer to $100 million, a fraction of the headline figure, against a company running a 21% EBITA margin. That’s an abosrbale hit on the holdco’s bottom line based on the numbers available. The exposure that is harder to model is reputational — more than 25 years with a client, Apple, Renault-Nissan, McDonald’s and several others all running on the same kind of long, unreviewed relationship Omnicom just watched come apart.

Whether that means Omnicom goes after Coca-Cola’s media business, which is now in play following Publicis’ decision to relinquish its North America media account and back out of contesting the rest of it after the PepsiCo deal remains to be seen. If it is, Angelastro offered scant detail.

“We value the relationship [with PepsiCo] but certainly there will be a little bit more flexibility in terms of what we pursue in the future.”

17596: For WPP, TGIF’d Up.

2026-09-11T12:38:19.502-05:00

MediaPost reported increasing motion sickness in the WPP whistleblower lawsuit.

Previously, the single White operating company sought to seal all references to an alleged Sony Pictures investigation, insisting the “whistleblower” acquired the information via improper means.

The “whistleblower” countered by claiming Sony Pictures brought the investigation details to his legal team earlier this year—completely unsolicited and sans confidentiality request.

WPP boasts being “The Trusted Growth Partner For The World’s Leading Brands.”

Sony likely questions the “Trusted” claim.

Sony Briefed Foster’s Legal Team On Its WPP Rebate Probe

By Steve McClellan

Last month WPP “whistleblower” Richard Foster submitted evidence in his wrongful termination suit against the company of a previously undisclosed investigation by client Sony that concluded WPP pocketed $350 million in media rebates in China belonging to clients.

A week later WPP demanded that the New York State Supreme Court judge hearing the case seal all documents related to the Sony probe, alleging that Foster likely acquired documents improperly.

But according to Foster, that’s not the case. In a court filing yesterday opposing WPP’s demand to seal, Foster said that Sony brought the findings to Foster’s legal team earlier this year, without any prior solicitation or request for confidentiality.

According to the documents Sony made initial contact with the Foster’s law firm (Brewer Attorney’s & Counselors) in February. In May Sony requested a meeting which took place remotely when company representatives briefed Foster’s legal team on the rebate investigation that Sony undertook.

“Sony, a sophisticated client, examined the same Rebate and Purchase Risk practices Plaintiff reported, reached the same conclusions about them, and presented those findings to WPP’s two most senior lawyer,” Foster’s motion states.

“That evidence bears on three contested elements of this case. It supports the objective reasonableness of Plaintiff’s belief, because a disinterested third party with access to the underlying data interpreted the practices the same way Foster did. It bears on Defendants’ knowledge, because the findings went to the officers Defendants say exercised “robust formal internal controls.” And it bears on causation and pretext, because the executives Sony identified are the same executives Plaintiff alleges removed him.”

Foster also argued that WPP’s demand to seal discussions he had with company attorney Nicola McCormick should be denied. “Defendants presume that because Nicola McCormick is a lawyer, her communications with Plaintiff are privileged. That is not the law,” per the filing.

“Defendants identify no communication in which she rendered legal advice and submit no affidavit from her. Plaintiff approached her as a business executive, and she answered in that capacity.”

Foster also argued separately that WPP’s motion for sanctions should be denied, submitting that no orders were violated, that discussions with McCormick were not privileged and that the Sony probe materials were obtained properly, among other reasons.

In addition to the filings, Brewer attorney William A. Brewer III, issued a comment: “Mr. Foster alleges that on multiple occasions, he reported through appropriate channels what he reasonably believed were systemic problems in WPP’s trading practices, Mr. Foster named names and provided specific, detailed reports of undisclosed profiteering by Defendants in the form of rebates. He believes those reports led to retaliation against him by his former employer — and ultimately resulted in his termination.”

17595: Exposing Historical Reality On The Hidden Page.

2026-09-10T12:23:06.685-05:00

LUNDU, Center for Afro-Peruvian Studies and Promotion, and Cheil Peru bring a Critical Race Theory perspective to Peru via The Hidden Page—a creative concept described as follows:

Bringing Afro-Peruvian historical memory to schools: The Hidden Page and the vindication of figures forgotten by Peruvian history

LUNDU, Center for Afro-Peruvian Studies and Promotion, and Cheil Peru join forces in an educational project, distributing 50,000 copies in Lima, Callao, Ica, Lambayeque, and Piura.

For decades, official Peruvian history was narrated from approaches or perspectives that relegated or rendered invisible the contribution of the Afro-Peruvian population to the country’s construction—especially that part of history related to the “colonial” era and the early days of the republic, which is reflected in school textbooks through references to the enslaved or “enslaved Black person” brought from Africa.

This way of narrating Peru’s history overlooked the stories of those men and women of African descent who, through their example, managed to remain in the memory and oral tradition of communities that historically had a significant concentration of Afro-Peruvian population.

To address this gap, the project “The Hidden Page” by LUNDU, Center for Afro-Peruvian Studies and Promotion, and Cheil Peru recovers and disseminates four stories of Afro-Peruvian heroes and heroines whose paths, struggles, and contributions were left out of predominant historical narratives. Since October 2025, members of this Afro-Peruvian culture research collective have been distributing printed copies of “The Hidden Page” to schools in Lima, Callao, Ica, Lambayeque, and Piura.

“With this initiative, we want to help bring visibility in schools to those key figures of the freedom and emancipation processes of the various Afro-descendant communities of the 19th century,” states LUNDU Project Director Brenda Garay, who has led various educational initiatives such as the school contest “For a Peru Without Racism” and the audiovisual project “My Story Matters.”

“When we have shared copies of The Hidden Page with students, we have seen it awaken children’s and adolescents’ curiosity to learn more about aspects of Peruvian history. We truly feel that we are achieving a change in the perception of Afro-Peruvian figures, beyond those related to music, cooking, and sports,” explains Brenda Garay.

This educational and Afro-Peruvian historical memory project has been documented audiovisually by Cheil Peru, accompanying Lundu’s team through the different stages of the project, including the research process by historian Maribel Arrelucea. During this stage, and thanks to the historical and family references of the figures, Cheil’s creative team was able to recreate the faces of Ildefonso, Francisco Congo, Catalina Buendía de Pecho, and Alberto “Grumete” Medina, as well as handle the layout design and the printing of 50,000 copies.

The project’s documentary video is now online across the social media channels of LUNDU, Center for Afro-Peruvian Studies and Promotion. It reflects the creative and historical documentation process, with a musical score by percussionists Carlos Yamasaki Ayllón and Gustavo Silva. The documentary includes commentary from former members of Lundu: its founder Mónica Carrillo, as well as singer and communicator Ysabel Omega. It also features analysis by the former General Director of Intercultural Citizenship of the Ministry of Culture, current Senator Susana Matute.

17594: On The Front Lines Of The Cola Wars.

2026-09-09T00:13:33.589-05:00

Advertising Age reported obvious news: The Coca-Cola Company is launching a review of its North America media account following incumbent Publicis Groupe nabbing global media duties for PepsiCo.

Or maybe not, as PepsiCo handed its media business to Publicis Groupe sans a formal review.

Ad Age stated potential pitch participants include WPP, Omnicom, and Dentsu.

For WPP, it would be a comeback of sorts, as the global flaming dumpster lost the North America media assignment to Publicis Groupe last year.

Despite losing PepsiCo global media responsibilities, Omnicom is still a “critical strategic partner” for the brand, so there could be potential conflicts picking up Coke media chores.

The scenario poses a unique challenge. As repeatedly noted by this blog, competitions for major chunks of business are typically closed affairs, exclusive privileges available only to a handful of White holding companies.

Yet in this case, the iconic Coca-Cola might have to settle for a lesser choice because the stronger players are unavailable.

Another unique aspect is Publicis Groupe essentially dumped Coke in favor of PepsiCo.

Coca-Cola was once consumed for medicinal purposes. Now it’s just making everyone feel sick.

Coca-Cola to review North America media after Publicis wins PepsiCo

By Ewan Larkin and Brian Bonilla

Coca-Cola Co. is readying a review of its North America media account after incumbent Publicis Groupe agreed to take over global media duties for PepsiCo, according to people familiar with the matter.

The beverage giant is said to be in discussions with WPP, Omnicom and Dentsu, the last of which works with Coca-Cola in Japan and Korea. Publicis won Coca-Cola’s North America media business from WPP, the primary global incumbent, just last year.

Coca-Cola declined to comment for this story.

Publicis had been pitching for Coke’s global media, data and tech business, competing against WPP, but the status of Publicis’ involvement is now unclear following the PepsiCo win. It also wasn’t immediately clear whether WPP, which also handles Coca-Cola’s global creative and PR, will assume those global duties.

Publicis, Dentsu and Omnicom declined to comment. WPP wasn’t immediately available for comment.

In a statement last week, an Omnicom spokesperson called PepsiCo’s move “one client’s decision in a year in which Omnicom Media has built tremendous momentum [with] leading brands across multiple categories,” pointing to wins with brands including Adidas, Dyson, IBM, Subway and Uber.

“After an extraordinarily long and successful partnership, PepsiCo has decided to move its media business elsewhere. We are proud of the work we have done together over three decades as partners in innovation and impact,” the spokesperson stated last week. “Nothing about yesterday’s decision changes that.”

17593: On Zapping Callaway And Good Good Golf.

2026-09-08T00:17:30.688-05:00

Adweek published more seemingly self-promotional schadenfreude from the Chief Marketing Officer of Zappi, who threw her sanctimonious soapbox at Callaway and Good Good Golf for their misogynistic marketing.

The author made one semi-insightful point: “The problem is that the infrastructure hasn’t kept up. Brands are producing more content, across more platforms, with more partners, for more audiences. The old model of heavily researching a few major campaigns wasn’t built for hundreds of smaller decisions.”

This is followed by shameless self-promotion, as the CMO presents Zappi AI services as capable of screening content quickly and efficiently.

There are key flaws in the proposal.

First, the old model never heavily researched a few major campaigns—at least not through a culturally competent lens. Indeed, work was evaluated with an exclusive, predominately White perspective.

Second, AI has already been called out for its cultural cluelessness. The real problem in this area involves technology and algorithms created with an exclusive, predominately White perspective.

Third, the root problem—which Adland has absolutely failed to address for at least 75 years—is the global DEIBA+ issue. That is, White advertising agencies—and companies like Zappi—perpetuate an exclusive, predominately White perspective.

The problem is that the infrastructure is built on systemic racism.

Callaway and Good Good’s Ad Was So Bad, Even AI Audiences Sounded the Alarm

Callaway and Good Good are arguing about approval, but should be arguing about why no process existed to flag the video before it aired

By Nataly Kelly

You know the clip by now. Good Good co-founder Garrett Clark shoves fellow creator Alexis Miestowski to the ground as she reaches for his new Callaway driver. He stands over her and tells her not to touch it.

The ad is gone. So is the partnership.

Retailers pulled Good Good merchandise, the company withdrew as title sponsor of a PGA Tour event, while Callaway pledged $1 million to organizations working to prevent violence against women in an effort to wash away the controversy.

And the entire public argument is about approval. Callaway CEO Chip Brewer says the video was produced by Good Good but signed off by Callaway, and that “that approval should have never happened.”

On Friday morning, Good Good CEO Matt Kendrick broke an 11-year Twitter silence at 3:38 a.m. to accuse Callaway of asking for the ad, approving it, then dropping his company in a “coordinated media blitz.” Asked whether he’d sue, he replied: “Not opposed.”

Both men are addressing the wrong questions. It’s not about who approved the ad; it’s how nobody and no process stopped it before it went live, when the tools to catch the warning signs cost less than the driver they’re selling.

The story is much bigger than just one terrible ad

We’ve entered a dynamic where brands and creators need each other. Brands need creators to reach communities they can’t, while creators need to monetize their audiences.

That relationship comes with risk, as brands put decades or centuries of hard-earned equity into the hands of culturally nimble third parties, and ask them to translate it for new audiences. That’s inherently risky. It’s also increasingly necessary.

Creators aren’t the problem. The problem is that the infrastructure hasn’t kept up. Brands are producing more content, across more platforms, with more partners, for more audiences. The old model of heavily researching a few major campaigns wasn’t built for hundreds of smaller decisions.

An ad so bad even AI frowned upon it

The frustrating thing about the Good Good ad is that the warning signs weren’t particularly difficult to find. We tested the ad after it was pulled, first with U.S. consumers. It performed significantly below advertising norms on appeal, likelihood to drive behavior, brand fit, relevance, believability, and attention.

More telling was the reaction underneath those scores. Nearly one-third said there was something offensive, unpleasant, or disturbing about the ad. Shock was eight times higher than our norm.

But let’s assume the Good Good and Callaway teams involved didn’t have the time, resources, or know-how to commission a traditional market research study for one piece of creator content. Fair enough. They at least could have tested the ad with AI.

So that’s what we did at Zappi. We ran the creative past 150 AI synthetic respondents trained on real consumer response data. We had answers back in just minutes. The ad received the lowest possible score (1/5) and even synthetic respondents could spot the warning signs about the content of the ad. Its recommendation, in hindsight, is almost unbearable to read: “Soften or clarify the physical moment so it reads as playful rather than awkward.”

Testing with humans allows you to feel the fire and know exactly how hot it was. But AI was a smoke detector that, if it had only been in place, would have told people to look more closely before the brand equity went down in flames.

Now, to be very clear, AI should never be the cultural arbiter deciding what’s acceptable, but when content moves faster than the infrastructure legacy brands have at their disposal, it can be an incredibly helpful early warning system that tells a human when something deserves a second look.

What brand leaders should take from this

Who’s at fault here? Everybody involved. Who can learn from it? Marketers. Agencies. All of us.

Creator partnerships and the creator economy aren’t going away. Neither is the pressure to produce more content, faster, for increasingly fragmented audiences.

Brands need creators, and creators need brands. Both need better guardrails, frankly, to cover their own (brand) asse(t)s.

For brands, those guardrails protect hard-earned equity. For creators, they protect the livelihood and audience they’ve spent years building. The lesson isn’t to slow creator marketing down until it resembles traditional advertising. It’s to build processes capable of moving just as fast as the media they’re meant to govern. And in this not-so-new reality, what the Callaway scandal makes clear is that AI already has an important role to play, but that many brands remain behind the curve.

17592: Labor Day 2026 In Adland.

2026-09-07T18:35:57.349-05:00

In many ways, Labor Day 2026 in Adland isn’t much different than last year. Feel free to re-read the 2025 post.

Yet as AI continues to dominate the collective conversation and consciousness, the drama has accelerated along with a lack of empathy and surfeit of indifference.

Celebrating the social and economic achievements of American workers is tough while thousands are being terminated because of radical restructuring and global accounts shifting between a limited, exclusive pool of White holding companies—many of which are based abroad.

White holding companies and White advertising agencies seek to do more with less; that is, more outcomes-based remunerated work with less White people.

Enjoy the holiday.

17591: More Motion Sickness At WPP.

2026-09-07T01:14:51.609-05:00

MediaPost reported on motion sickness at WPP, whereby the single White operating company filed more motions to dismiss the whistleblower lawsuit.

The latest filings presented two versions of the motion to dismiss: one version available to the public redacts all mentions of the alleged Sony Pictures investigation, and a second version not available to the public features no redacted material.

At this rate, any future actions will probably involve AI-generated motions.

Given WPP’s fascination with AI, it’s surprising legal duties haven’t been executed by the wondrous technology. WPP certainly has enough data from countless past lawsuits and court proceedings for creating the algorithms to make it happen.

WPP Files Motion To Dismiss Foster Case (You Can Read The Redacted Version)

By Steve McClellan

WPP has filed a motion to dismiss the wrongful termination case brought by former GroupM executive Richard Foster.

The firm filed two versions of the motion including one that redacts all references to a previously undisclosed investigation by WPP client Sony that Foster brought to light in an amended complaint last month. That version is available to the public. A second version of the motion with no redacted material has been filed with the court but is not available to the public.

Many of the points made by WPP in the latest motion have been argued by the firm in previous filings. For one, the firm argues that Foster is not a “whistleblower,” who was dismissed in retaliation, as he alleges. Instead, the firm argues he was one of many let go in a reduction in force event that occurred in 2025 and is seeking an outsized payout rarely offered to laid-off employees ($100 million).

All direct references to the Sony probe are redacted in the latest filing. The motion indirectly refers to it as a set of allegations that are “incendiary...scandalous, prejudicial, and utterly irrelevant,” to Foster’s claims. In earlier filings WPP asked the court to seal all references to the Sony probe. It has also demanded that Foster reveal how he obtained the heretofore undisclosed investigation materials, suggesting that he and his legal team acquired them improperly.

Foster alleges that Sony’s investigation concluded that WPP pocketed $350 million in rebates belonging to clients in China in 2024. He asserts that the probe supports his own case that he exposed rebate schemes at the company that were inappropriate, which he alleges was the main reason he was let go.

“Richard Foster’s seventeen-year run at GroupM was marked by his constant self-promotion, often through opportunistic business proposals advocating for greater investment in his division, Motion Content Group (“Motion”), over larger and more profitable divisions of GroupM,” WPP states in its latest motion.

“In the wake of his ignominious termination—the result of Defendants’ global restructuring and reduction in force (“RIF”)—Plaintiff tried to extract a seven-figure severance from Defendants by threatening to file a messy public lawsuit. Those efforts failed, and this case (the “Action”) is the result.”

Foster’s amended complaint, WPP adds, “suffers the same inevitable defects as Plaintiff’s original pleading, recasting Plaintiff’s longstanding self-advocacy as “whistleblowing,” construing ordinary workplace disputes as retaliation, and failing to allege any causal connection between Plaintiff’s activities and his termination. Setting aside those shortcomings, the Amended Complaint further piles on sensational and irrelevant accusations [the Sony probe] based largely on information obtained after Plaintiff’s termination.”

Foster also fails to plead “essential elements” required for a retaliation challenge under both New York and California laws, WPP stated.

William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and lead counsel to Foster issued a response to WPP’s latest filing:

“In the three weeks since Mr. Foster filed his Amended Complaint, WPP has filed a flurry of motions which portray a Defendant panicked by the strength of Mr. Foster’s allegations against them—which include findings of clients that support his claims.”

Brewer added that, “Mr. Foster alleges that on multiple occasions, he reported through appropriate channels what he reasonably believed was a systemic problem in WPP’s trading practices—naming names and providing specific, detailed reports. He believes those reports led to retaliation against him. Mr. Foster remains confident that he will prevail.”

17590: On The Exclusive Privileges Of PepsiCo.

2026-09-06T03:11:14.753-05:00

This LinkedIn post spotlights numerous Fortune 500 CEOs who leveraged PepsiCo experience to land C-suite roles.

The headline reads: This isn’t a coincidence. It’s a pattern

Okay, but the pattern looks like lots of White men and White women enjoyed advantages at PepsiCo, along with a handful who perhaps benefited from the groundbreaking success of former PepsiCo Chairman and CEO Indra Nooyi…?

17589: At Target, Black Beauty Is Nearly Invisible.

2026-09-05T00:34:32.213-05:00

From Modern Retail at Digiday…

Target’s new beauty selection has almost no Black-owned brands

By Mitchell Parton

Target’s refreshed beauty assortment aims to promote emerging brands, but it includes very few from Black entrepreneurs.

Target Beauty Studio is set to launch Sept. 10 in more than 600 Target stores and on the company’s website. The new beauty selection replaces former Ulta Beauty shops within Target stores and will feature more than 1,600 products from 90 brands, largely brands new to Target.

Of the 90 brands listed as part of the new beauty assortment, Modern Retail could only identify two with Black owners or founders: hair-care brand Briogeo and Glamazon Beauty, a line of cosmetics. Otherwise, the selection appears to mostly include brands owned or founded by white or Asian entrepreneurs, with around a dozen Korean brands. More than two-thirds of the brands are new to Target.

The Beauty Studio doesn’t represent Target’s entire selection of beauty products, which may be found elsewhere in the store or online. Still, the lack of representation in the more curated assortment has raised questions from founders and outside consultants about Target’s desire to sell and promote products from Black-owned businesses. It remains unclear whether Target failed to recruit such brands to the program or if brands refused to take part in the new beauty initiative.

A Target spokesperson told Modern Retail that the collection was focused on beauty brands from around the world, pointing to Korean, Japanese, Mexican and French brands. Nearly 40% of the brands were founded by “diverse” founders, they said, but did not explain how they define that word. They added that offerings of Black-owned and -founded brands are comparable to its previous in-store experience, likely referring to the Ulta shops. The selection still does include products in a range of shades for different skin complexions.

“Getting back to growth starts with investing in the categories and experiences where Target is uniquely positioned to win, all through our distinctive combination of style, design and value,” a Target spokesperson said in a statement, adding that new brands and products will launch throughout the year.

The company also said it has helped to introduce and grow Black-owned brands through opportunities such as exclusive launches and programs designed to expand access to mass retail.

Modern Retail previously reported that Black entrepreneurs have described Target as a frustrating wholesale partner and that Black-owned brands once featured at Target have been removed from the retailer’s assortment without explanation. Some have voluntarily stopped working with Target because of the company’s handling of their brands’ inventory, lack of communication, or decision to end diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives last year.

Who still signed on

Former Goldman Sachs vp Nancy Twine started one of the two black-founded brands in Target Beauty Studio, Briogeo, in 2013. She was the youngest Black woman to launch a product line at Sephora, according to the brand’s website. In 2022, Twine sold the brand to Wella for nine figures, she told Forbes. Neither Briogeo nor Twine immediately responded to requests for comment.

The other brand, Glamazon Beauty, was founded and formulated by celebrity makeup artist Kim Baker in 2017. Baker remains the founder, CEO, creative director and majority owner, according to the company. Baker told Modern Retail in a statement that Target has proactively offered access to resources, marketing support and guidance to support the brand.

“Target has been a dream retailer for me for many years, and from the beginning of our partnership, I’ve felt seen, heard and supported,” she said. “We work with a diverse team that has been thoughtful about how Glamazon shows up and how we authentically serve women across shades and ethnicities.”

Baker also said her partners at Target have been receptive to ideas on using her platform to create visibility and opportunity for other entrepreneurs and minority-owned businesses. She added that she was not involved in determining the Beauty Studio assortment.

“I can only speak from my own experience, and I’m incredibly grateful for the partnership we’ve built with Target,” Baker said. “My focus now is on making the most of this opportunity, serving our customers exceptionally well and using Glamazon’s growing platform to help open doors wider for those coming behind us.”

Target revealed the details of the Beauty Studio just days after it pulled a children’s Halloween costume from its shelves Monday, following social media backlash and criticism that it was similar to racist Jim Crow-era minstrel caricatures. The company apologized in a statement: “The costume is offensive and should never have been part of our assortment,” the company said. “It is no longer available for sale.”

“When you don’t have diverse voices and, more importantly, diverse life experiences in a room, people don’t see the problems that are around the corner,” said Christy Pruitt-Haynes, a consultant and strategist with a background in human resources and DEI. “When you have a room full of executives who all have the same blind spots, that means you’re missing the potential problems that situations could present.”

Target last year concluded its three-year DEI goals, concluded its Racial Equity Action and Change initiatives, stopped all externally diversity-focused surveys such as the HRC’s Corporate Equality Index, and renamed its “supplier diversity” team to “supplier engagement.” Still, the company said it fulfilled its 2021 commitment this year to invest $2 billion in Black-owned businesses and that most of the new partners it brought in remain partners today.

Critics of Target’s DEI decision said it was an about-face from the company’s previous work to uplift Black-owned brands. The company had previously made public statements on racial equity and investing in scholarships, business consulting and sponsorships aimed to support marginalized groups, especially following the murder of George Floyd in Target’s hometown of Minneapolis.

In May, a Target representative told Modern Retail that the company still had hundreds of Black-owned brands on its shelves, double what it had in 2020, and that it has continued to partner with Black designers, creators and founders.

Potential solutions

Meanwhile, other retailers in 2020 and 2021 signed on to the Fifteen Percent Pledge, a nonprofit that calls on major retailers and corporations to commit 15% of their annual purchasing power to Black-owned businesses, as Black or mixed-race people make up about 15% of the U.S. population. This includes Ulta Beauty and Sephora, who have partnered with the organization on accelerator programs or grants for underrepresented founders as recently as this year.

“What we really want to look at when we look at these things is the percentage and how that compares to the percentage of the population at large,” said Lola Bakare, a CMO advisor, inclusive-marketing strategist and author of “Responsible Marketing.” Two of 90 brands being from Black founders would make up about 2% of the Beauty Studio assortment. “I think the average consumer might be glad there are two, but what we also know is that they can do so much better.”

Bakare said Target should consider the Fifteen Percent Pledge as a potential solution. “Let’s not have another apology,” she added. “You want to replicate what Sephora and Ulta are doing? Replicate them all the way and take the Fifteen Percent Pledge.”

Danyail Lawton, founder and CEO of consultancy BoldMoves — which specializes in public relations, reputation management and crisis management — and a former people operations manager for the U.S. Air Force, said Target’s new CEO, Michael Fiddelke, should have made a public announcement on DEI when he entered the role to avoid deterring consumers or brands any further. She said Target executives need to address the issue directly to move on from it.

Former Target CEO Brian Cornell wrote about uncertainty over Target’s values in an email to staff last year, but communications, marketing and leadership consultants said the message was vague and failed to reassure people about any continued commitment to underrepresented groups.

“The longer it goes without being addressed, the more challenging it is going to be to gain that momentum and credibility back,” Lawton said. “The longer it goes without being addressed, the more people are going to speculate and the more people are going to make their own narratives, and that’s what you want to avoid when you’re dealing with the public in the communications role.”

Pruitt-Haynes similarly said Target could win back brands by making a public statement about wanting them in its store. “That implies a level of support and consent,” she said. “They would start to see a return of their consumers, which would lead to more sales.”

17588: Useless Expert Analysis On PepsiCo Media Shift.

2026-09-04T10:31:06.261-05:00

Advertising Age continued to examine PepsiCo shifting its global media business from Omnicom to Publicis Groupe via color commentary delivered by consultants, analysts, and industry experts.

What exactly qualifies someone to be labeled an industry expert? The ones who’ve worked in Adland are industry failures, no?

A closer look at the professional quips shows insights that could’ve been generated by AI—or any A-hole with minimal awareness of the field.

Appropriately enough, the identified consultants, analysts, and industry experts are White men.

What PepsiCo’s global media shift means for Omnicom

By Ewan Larkin

PepsiCo’s decision to move global media to Publicis Groupe—made without a formal pitch—diminishes one of the industry’s most durable client-agency relationships and takes some of the sheen off the new Omnicom.

Although significantly scaled back, Omnicom’s relationship with PepsiCo isn’t over; the holding company will continue to support creative, PR and sports marketing, the food and beverage company said. Still, Omnicom’s OMD has lost a top-three client with $1.7 billion in global spend last year, according to COMvergence, making it a significant financial loss. In the U.S. alone, OMD has roughly 130 people working on PepsiCo, Ad Age has learned.

Omnicom Media declined to comment on potential layoffs stemming from the account shift.

“PepsiCo had already become increasingly promiscuous on the creative side, regularly working outside Omnicom,” said a former PepsiCo executive speaking on condition of anonymity. “Omnicom tolerated those infidelities because media planning and buying was the far bigger prize. Now that prize is gone—and with it, a partnership that lasted decades.”

Of course, Omnicom could recoup that loss, and it has already notched wins with brands including Adidas, IBM, Subway and Novo Nordisk this year. In a statement, an Omnicom spokesperson called PepsiCo’s move “one client’s decision in a year in which Omnicom Media has built tremendous momentum as leading brands across multiple categories.”

“After an extraordinarily long and successful partnership, PepsiCo has decided to move its media business elsewhere. We are proud of the work we have done together over three decades as partners in innovation and impact,” the spokesperson stated. “Nothing about yesterday’s decision changes that.”

Ultimately, though, the blow extends beyond billings, experts said.

Omnicom’s relationship with PepsiCo has been an outlier in an industry known for client churn, and an especially rare one given the integrated nature and size of the account. As a result, the sudden shift will sting morale and perception just as much as its bottom line. Omnicom executives were officially informed about the media account move on Wednesday morning, according to people familiar with the matter.

“There’s some accounts that your business is built around. They’re almost part of the furniture,” said Brian Wieser, principal at advisory and consulting firm Madison and Wall. “Pepsi is one of those.”

“There can’t be very many billion-dollar-plus accounts that have this kind of tenure,” Wieser added.

PepsiCo is “a marquee account” for Omnicom, said Ruben Schreurs, CEO of media consultancy Ebiquity, comparing the PepsiCo shift to WPP’s loss of the Coca-Cola North America account to Publicis last year. “It was a very high-profile account, right? Every agency has only a few of those, and PepsiCo was absolutely one of those for Omnicom.”

While hardly a ringing endorsement of the deal, some industry experts stopped short of calling PepsiCo’s decision an indictment of Omnicom’s $8.9 billion acquisition of Interpublic Group of Cos. They said it was too anecdotal to draw any firm conclusions, especially considering that Publicis’ pursuit of the account may have predated the merger.

However, Jay Pattisall, VP and principal analyst at Forrester, said the shift is not a “strong vote of confidence in the integrated proposition Omnicom has been putting together” since acquiring IPG.

“What this suggests is the integration with [IPG data firm] Acxiom is still underway,” Pattisall said. “One particular client loss, although it’s a significant one in size, is not an indictment by any means of the strategy to acquire and integrate Acxiom, but it might suggest that it’s just not complete yet.”

In announcing its appointment of Publicis, PepsiCo emphasized the need to bring together “data, connected identity and technology across markets.”

Both Omnicom and Publicis “position themselves as a leader in media, technology, data—and AI to facilitate it—and Pepsi has chosen the one that it thinks has the superior offer at this stage,” Pattisall added.

An Omnicom spokesperson pointed to “approximately $4 billion in media billings awarded this year through a combination of incremental wins and retentions” as “evidence that its offer is resonating.”

“All of these decisions followed thorough, months-long review processes that included the major holding companies, putting the competing organizations through a rigorous test of their capabilities across data and analytics, AI technologies and transformation," the spokesperson stated.

Contributing: E.J. Schultz and Brian Bonilla

17587: PepsiCo Takes Cola Wars To Global Scale.

2026-09-03T00:24:53.806-05:00

Adweek reported PepsiCo handed its global media account to Publicis Groupe sans a formal pitch.

Did Publicis Groupe outdo incumbent Omnicom in terms of Corporate Cultural Collusion? Omnicom has been the standard-bearer for that maneuver—especially with PepsiCo.

The appointment prompted Publicis Groupe to withdraw from a global review for Coca-Cola media, data, and technology—which probably has WPP breathing a sigh of relief, as the single White operating company likely would’ve lost at least some of the Coke business.

Shifting global media duties to Publicis Groupe was not tied at all to the PepsiCo global review for AI transformation. Maybe a competitor in that pitch will persuade PepsiCo its media can be executed via AI, effectively negating the French holding company’s victory.

The entire spectacle underscores how serving global brands are closed affairs, exclusive privileges available only to a handful of White holding companies.

Rarely discussed is the impact on countless drones at White advertising agencies and White media firms whose livelihoods are lost without advance notice.

Far less consideration is given to non-White advertising agencies, even though Pepsi pioneered multicultural marketing through the iconic accomplishments of Eric F. Boyd.

Today’s Cola Wars create casualties on a global scale.

Publicis Lands PepsiCo’s Global Media Business, Withdraws From Coke Pitch

As the CPG unifies its media account under Publicis Groupe, a source told ADWEEK it will withdraw from Coca-Cola’s global media pitch

By Rebecca Stewart

PepsiCo has chosen Publicis Groupe to handle its global media account, the CPG confirmed to ADWEEK.

The appointment will see the French holdco build a new media model underpinned by AI and data, uniting strategy, planning, activation, connected identity, and technology under one roof.

The “One PepsiCo” model will serve the brand’s entire portfolio, including Pepsi, Gatorade, and Lay’s, in more than 200 markets.

Per its latest annual report, PepsiCo spent $5.4 billion on marketing activities in 2025, with $3.4 billion of that total going toward advertising.

According to sources with direct knowledge of the matter, the PepsiCo appointment will prompt Publicis to withdraw from the ongoing pitch for the remainder of Coca-Cola’s global media business. MediaSense is handling that review, which has previously been estimated to be worth around $4 billion.

Publicis, which already handles Coca-Cola’s media account in the U.S. and Canada, declined to comment.

A new model

Publicis’ appointment as PepsiCo’s exclusive lead global media partner will displace U.S. rival Omnicom, whose OMD network has held the account in key markets, including the U.S. and U.K., for more than two decades.

A PepsiCo spokesperson told ADWEEK that Omnicom will remain a “critical strategic partner” across many creative, sports, and PR briefs. Omnicom declined to comment.

Publicis has previously worked with PepsiCo in markets including China, India, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Taiwan, South Korea, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and parts of Eastern Europe.

ADWEEK understands there was no pitch for PepsiCo’s media account, and that Publicis was appointed following a media capabilities review.

In a statement, the soda and snack maker said its new media model will help it deliver “more relevant consumer connections” and make “smarter marketing decisions” across paid, earned, and shared media.

PepsiCo is currently running a separate global review focused on broader AI marketing transformation and capabilities.

It was previously reported that Omnicom, Accenture, Deloitte, and Publicis Groupe’s Sapient unit were competing for the AI brief.

17586: For Court Performance, WPP Scores A Triple-Trouble.

2026-09-02T00:14:43.241-05:00

Adweek published a WPP cases study—that is, the trade journal spotlighted three separate legal cases arguably exposing the alleged “global crime scheme” orchestrated by executives at WPP Media (formerly GroupM).

WPP honchos are likely relieved to see the Adweek piece is subscription-only content, meaning a limited number of people will read the sordid details. Can’t imagine excerpts from such reporting might appear in WPP Media pitch decks.

At this point, the single White operating company is probably considering launching another unit: WPP Legal Defense.

17585: The WPP Empire Strikes Back.

2026-09-01T00:12:53.860-05:00

MediaPost reported WPP is now demanding the New York State Supreme Court not only dismiss the whistleblower lawsuit, but also the whistleblower’s lawyers.

Apparently, the single White operating company isn’t satisfied with simply dismissing thousands of its own workers.

What’s more, WPP wants to go after the whistleblower’s sources and anonymous accomplices, particularly anyone involved in uncovering the Sony Pictures investigation allegedly charging WPP ran a “global crime scheme” through its media practice.

Not sure why WPP is so upset. After all, the company implemented a whistleblower hotline about a decade ago, encouraging employees to call out wrongdoing without fear of retaliation.

The whistleblower hotline was reportedly ringing off the hook in 2023, arguably showing its effectiveness.

Yet today WPP is on the offensive, attacking purported whistleblowers and anyone associated with them.

Hey, if you want to stop whistleblowers, consider avoiding behavior that incites whistleblowing.

Try earning the trust of a worldwide workforce.

WPP Moves To Have Foster’s Lawyers Dismissed, Sony Probe Sources Divulged

By Steve McClellan

WPP is demanding further action by the New York State Supreme Court Judge hearing the wrongful termination suit by former WPP Media (FKA GroupM) executive and purported whistleblower Richard Foster.

Foster has alleged that WPP terminated him after he complained to senior executives at the company that it was systematically misappropriating media rebates that belonged to clients.

Earlier this month in court papers Foster outlined a previously undisclosed investigation by client Sony that exposed a rebate scheme that cost clients hundreds of millions of dollars in China and possibly elsewhere.

While WPP has not disputed the accuracy of Foster’s disclosures, it has asserted that Foster obtained the Sony report by inappropriate means and that all references to it be sealed. The company alleges that Foster and his legal team knew it was unlawful to disclose the Sony probe and separate confidential discussions that Foster had with senior lawyer Nicola McCormick.

In a follow-up motion for oral argument, WPP is now arguing that redacting and sealing those references are not “workable options” to address the harm it has suffered and could suffer in the future.

In addition to dismissing Foster’s amended complaint “with prejudice,” WPP wants monetary sanctions imposed on the plaintiff as well as the dismissal of the law firm, the Brewer Firm and its legal team from having anything more to do with the case.

WPP is also demanding that Foster be ordered to disclose how he obtained information about the Sony investigation, “including when and how it was obtained, its source, all persons who received or reviewed it, and whether and to whom it was further disseminated.”

17584: AD + CW + ACD + CD @ VML + WPP = WTF.

2026-08-31T11:12:08.154-05:00

This actual job listing—along with numerous listings promoting other roles—seeks a Creative Director for VML, underscoring how the White advertising agency within global flaming dumpster WPP should be avoided by applicants at all costs.

VML and WPP have collectively released thousands of employees in recent times, announcing that additional worldwide downsizing is planned. So, why the hell are they recruiting? Seeing job listings during constant and impending layoffs is not exactly a morale booster.

The entry includes:

“VML is a leading creative company that combines brand experience, customer experience, and commerce, creating connected brands to drive growth. VML is celebrated for its innovative and award-winning human-first work for clients including AstraZeneca, Colgate-Palmolive, Dell, Ford, Microsoft, Nestlé, The Coca-Cola Company, and Wendy’s.”

Um, the client status of Coca-Cola and Wendy’s is pending.

The entry also states:

“We are looking for a hands-on, visionary Creative Director, Copy to join a tight-knit team dedicated to elevating our creative output. This role is designed for a true maker and master of the written word — someone who is genuinely passionate about television, film, and the craft of writing for the screen.”

Are these AI-generated generic descriptors? Most hiring managers demand candidates fill specific roles and requirements—right down to having relevant brand and category experience for the position.

Or is this exercise satisfying performative DEIBA+ initiatives? White advertising agencies often posted fake job listings to claim offering opportunities to minorities and underrepresented groups. Although such tactics have almost disappeared given the current anti-DEIBA+ vibe in Adland.

The single White operating company boasting to be the trusted growth partner for the world’s leading brands should consider being the trusted employer for its worldwide workforce.

17583: On Progressively Saving And Losing.

2026-08-30T00:17:08.216-05:00

Is Progressive admitting saving on auto insurance involves a gambling game?

This advertisement should be pulled like a slot machine lever.

17582: More Zapping Target For Costume Cultural Cluelessness.

2026-08-29T11:07:43.852-05:00

Adweek published a seemingly self-promotional perspective from the Chief Marketing Officer of Zappi, providing unsolicited advice for Target in the wake of its latest Halloween hijinks.

Pointing to another Target Halloween costume controversy involving Anne Frank insensitivity (depicted below), the piece underscored MultiCultClassics’ recognition that trick-or-treating brings regular trouble to the mega-retailer.

After droning on about data, the author closed with a hopefully unintentionally patronizing statement:

“But no amount of testing can make up for one cold, hard fact. Somebody who could have looked at this costume and immediately seen the problem was either not involved, or wasn’t heard early enough to stop it.”

Um, it’s more likely that nobody creating Target content possesses the cultural competence or authority to make such a call.

In short, the marketing team at Target probably looks like the leadership team at Zappi.

Unsolicited advice for Zappi CMO: People in exclusive glass houses…

A Retailer’s Checklist to Prevent the Next Target Costume Blunder

Target’s repeat offense shows why ‘pull it and apologize’ doesn’t work. Here’s what retailers should actually change.

By Nataly Kelly

In 2020, Target pulled a children’s costume from its website after shoppers pointed out that it evoked Anne Frank. Six years later, the retailer is apologizing again, this time for a children’s Halloween costume that critics said evoked racist minstrel caricatures.

Target responded in typical corporate fashion. It pulled the product, apologized, and promised internal reviews of the situation. But we all know that the veil of proactivity fades in favor of waiting for all of the uproar to blow over.

When does an apology stop being a checkbox exercise as opposed to a genuine learning moment?

A massive corporation like Target no doubt has checks, balances, and stage gates for almost everything. And there’s real volume and pressure behind seasonal innovation.

Target has said some of its strongest recent performance has come in the fall, and nearly 70% of its Halloween assortment this year is new. That’s a lot of innovation moving through an organization quickly.

One offensive product is a mistake; two is a concerning trend.

When a similar failure happens again, it raises a harder question: What did the organization actually learn the first time?

The bar is high and teams are stretched thin trying to find ideas that land. Products are tested for risk—things like choking, flammability, sizing, cost. What’s too often disconnected is how an individual product might affect perception of the brand.

There is no innovation without brand, and no brand without innovation. But the teams tasked with each are often operating separately.

So what should retailers do differently?

Classify products by their potential for brand risk

A costume carries fundamentally different risks than a towel or a blender. Costumes regularly venture into the territory of culture, identity and at times, appropriation. In a Talker Research survey of American parents, 29% said costumes built around cultural stereotypes should be pulled from stores. For anything involving blackface, that number rose to 43%. Some lines are clearer than others. Seasonal deadlines make that scrutiny harder, but also more important.

Review the whole, not just the parts

Teams need to look at the composite, not just the individual components. In the Target example, a children’s striped bodysuit alone reads as a clown suit. Add a black mesh mask with a snaggletoothed grin. Then add black gloves and a tiny top hat with a flower on the brim. Most companies review the tech pack and never review the photograph of the image, but the photograph is what the customer ultimately sees, and reacts to.

Look closely at consumer signals

Before this conversation exploded on social media, shoppers were already flagging the costume in Target’s own product reviews. That’s the kind of signal companies spend enormous amounts of money trying to find. Another problem is often that the people moderating product reviews don’t talk to the people creating products, and most of those folks are not getting feedback directly from consumers whatsoever. In a hundred-thousand-person company, things fall through the cracks. Consumer research only helps if it can travel horizontally across the organization, and can be accessed quickly enough for every employee making a decision that affects the brand to act on it. At many companies, access to consumer testing is not yet democratized and widely available.

Address the cultural problems no checklist can solve.

No one wakes up hoping to destroy brand equity and alienate consumers. Companies repeat mistakes when they treat their own response as a project with an end date instead of a system that has to be built and maintained for the long term.

Think about what six years does to an organization the size of Target. The team that felt the heat in 2020 is gone. The vp that commissioned the internal review may have retired. The consultant that curated the design invoiced and moved on. The task force fizzled out not long after the news cycle. And the document with the retro is still sitting in a drive nobody opens under a name that no longer has any relevance.

That requires better consumer feedback and more connected data. But no amount of testing can make up for one cold, hard fact. Somebody who could have looked at this costume and immediately seen the problem was either not involved, or wasn’t heard early enough to stop it.

Target will recover, and eventually the news cycle will move on, as it goes. But while consumers can look past a mistake, it’s very hard to undo how a brand made them feel. The goal shouldn’t be to get better at apologizing. It’s to build an organization that remembers why it had to apologize in the first place, and keeps the next embarrassing mea culpa from happening.

17581: Appealing To Black Consumers One Month—And One Holiday—At A Time.

2026-08-28T00:14:18.746-05:00

Adweek interviewed The Gathering Spot Co-Founder Ryan Wilson, who was closing out Black Business Month and reflecting on brands appealing to Black audiences.

“The biggest mistake is treating Black businesses and Black consumers as a moment on the calendar instead of an important part of the economy and culture every day of the year,” Wilson opined. “Black Business Month can be a great catalyst for attention, but the goal should be to build relationships that extend well beyond August.”

There’s not much new to Wilson’s words, in terms of pointing out brands’ cultural cluelessness and dismal DEIBA+ dedication.

Black History Month, Black Music Month, Black Business Month, Juneteenth, and Kwanzaa are combining to create opportunities to collect crumbs all year long.

Just need nine more months of Black celebrations to complete the calendar.

Ryan Wilson On Why Many Brands Still Don’t Know How to Appeal to Black Consumers

“Manufacturing authenticity” will never capture the community’s $2.1 trillion in spending power

By Robert Klara

A recent study by the Brookings Institution found that Black-owned employer businesses have blown past the 200,000 mark for the first time ever, collectively accounting for 1.8 million jobs and $249 billion in revenue.

But the growth comes despite persistent challenges. According to data firm WifiTalents, Black entrepreneurs start off with a third less capital than their white counterparts, receive just 1% of venture-capital funding, and often cite lack of mentorship as a growth impediment.

Few understand these dynamics better than Ryan Wilson. In 2019, the Atlanta native recognized the need for a club where Black entrepreneurs could convene, co-work, and make professional connections. Today, The Gathering Spot is an Atlanta institution “where business deals are made, ventures financed, and community initiatives take hold,” according to Black Enterprise.

Brandweek, ADWEEK’s three-day marketing summit, will host an evening social at RETREAT, The Gathering Spot’s rooftop venue, from 7:00 -10:00 p.m. on September 15. In advance of the function, we sat down with Wilson to talk about Black businesses, the Black dollar, and what major brands frequently get wrong about both.

ADWEEK: We’re wrapping up Black Business Month, when it’s common for major retailers and credit cards to spotlight Black-owned businesses and encourage people to shop with them. Do you have any thoughts on why these brands don’t encourage support of Black-owned businesses all year long? Are they missing an opportunity because they don’t?

RYAN WILSON: The biggest mistake is treating Black businesses and Black consumers as a moment on the calendar instead of an important part of the economy and culture every day of the year.

Black Business Month can be a great catalyst for attention, but the goal should be to build relationships that extend well beyond August. If a company only engages Black-owned businesses when there is a campaign or cultural moment attached to it, that engagement can start to feel transactional rather than authentic.

Yes, I think brands are absolutely missing an opportunity when they take that approach. Supporting Black-owned businesses isn’t simply a social-impact strategy; it can also be a smart business strategy. These businesses are creating products, employing people, building communities, and shaping culture. The brands that understand that will build deeper relationships and, ultimately, greater trust.

Why did you see a need for a networking hub like the Gathering Spot, and have you seen success stories emerge from it that have validated the concept?

When we started The Gathering Spot, we believed there was a need for a different kind of community. Traditional networking can be very transactional: you meet someone, exchange information, and hope something happens afterward. We wanted to build a place where connection was part of the infrastructure: a creative could sit next to an attorney, an entrepreneur could meet an investor, or someone with an idea could meet the person who helps turn it into something real.

One of the clearest validations has been watching that idea grow beyond a single clubhouse in Atlanta. We expanded physically to Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles and built membership communities in cities including New York, Detroit, Charlotte, Houston, and Chicago.

There are countless individual relationships and collaborations that have come from people meeting at The Gathering Spot, but what validates the original vision most for me is that people continue to see value in intentionally being in community with one another.

According to 2025 Nielsen data, the U.S. Black community packs $2.1 trillion in spending power. Brands obviously know that on some level, and yet we still see examples of marketing that fails to reach that community effectively—and sometimes offends them. What do brand marketers misunderstand or consistently get wrong about Black consumers?

One of the biggest mistakes is trying to manufacture authenticity at the end of the process.

You can’t develop a campaign without meaningful Black perspectives in the room and then add cultural references at the end and expect that to create an authentic connection. Representation has to exist upstream. Who is helping develop the strategy? Who has decision-making authority? Who are your partners? Who are you listening to before the campaign ever reaches the public?

At The Gathering Spot, we’ve seen firsthand how powerful it can be when people are invited into genuine community rather than simply marketed to. The same principle applies to brands. If your first meaningful conversation with Black consumers happens when you’re trying to sell them something, you’ve probably started too late.

The companies that will get this right are the ones that approach the Black community with curiosity, consistency, and respect—not simply because of the size of its spending power, but because Black consumers are helping shape culture, entrepreneurship, and the broader marketplace every day.

17580: Outraged Public’s Not Clowning Around With Target.

2026-08-27T00:09:53.651-05:00

People reported Target took heat for hyping a racist Halloween costume (depicted above).

It’s not the first time trick-or-treating at Target touched off trouble. It’s also not the first time “Black guests” have been personally and/or professionally disrespected by the mega-retailer.

Given Target was among the first to diminish DEIBA+ initiatives in recent times, the latest Halloween scandal is, well, scary.

Target Pulls Clown Halloween Costume After Backlash, Says ‘We Got This Wrong’ in Apology Note

The costume was called out on social media for being racially insensitive

By Madison E. Goldberg

Target has removed a clown Halloween costume following criticisms that it evoked blackface, minstrel shows and racist imagery.

“An apology from us: We removed an offensive Halloween costume that should never have been part of our assortment,” Target wrote in a statement shared on social media on Monday, Aug. 24. “It is no longer for sale. As a company, we got this wrong, and we are deeply sorry.”

“We know this is especially hurtful for our Black guests, team members and partners,” the statement from Target continued. “Removing the costume is an important first step, and we are looking closely at how this happened and what needs to change to ensure this won’t happen again.”

In photos of the now-deleted costume, sold as “Kids’ Glows under Blacklight Circus Clown,” a young Black boy modeled the outfit, which featured a black-and-orange printed bodysuit and hood with an exaggerated smile and mini top hat.

The model’s pose, in which he stands with one leg and arm raised in a waving gesture, particularly sparked criticism for its affiliation with Jim Crow-era negative depictions of Black people, according to The Cut.

“Target, for real? I’m not surprised, but this is a new low,” comedian LaTrez Anderson said in a now-deleted Instagram Reel about the costume, per the outlet.

“The amount of people this costume had to go through to get approved says A. LOT. WHAT YEAR IS IT!?” an Instagram user commented on Target’s apology post.

Blackface is defined as “dark makeup worn to mimic the appearance of a Black person and especially to mock or ridicule Black people,” according to Merriam-Webster. The use of blackface in the U.S. was initially recorded through “minstrel shows,” in which white performers would wear blackface and mock Black people based on negative stereotypes, according to the National Museum of African American History and Culture.

The Halloween costume controversy comes nearly a year after Target rolled back Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Target CEO Brian Cornell later stepped down after 11 years with the company, it announced in August 2025. Target has faced consumer boycotts since early last year due to the DEI cuts, PEOPLE previously reported.

Anne and Lucy Dayton, the daughters of one of Target’s co-founders, called the company’s actions “a betrayal” at the time, CNN previously reported.

17579: New CMO Means WPP = Wendy’s Potentially Packing…?

2026-08-26T00:14:16.337-05:00

Advertising Age reported Wendy’s hired a new Chief Marketing Officer—who just happens to be a former Mickey D’s CMO—to orchestrate a brand turnaround.

Um, hoping to emulate the Golden Arches is hardly a McRoad to success, as even struggling Ronald McDonald would admit.

If the new CMO takes a standard approach—i.e., launches an account review including former cronies and co-conspirators—it might mean trouble for longtime incumbent White advertising agency VML. The potential snowball effect could adversely impact WPP Creative, WPP Production, WPP Media, and the entire single White operating company.

In short, lots of WPP drones might lose their lunch—and be forced to seek employment as Wendy’s or Mickey D’s crew members.

Wendy’s hires former McDonald’s CMO Tariq Hassan

By Erika Wheless

Tariq Hassan, the former chief marketing and customer experience officer for McDonald’s U.S., is now Wendy’s chief marketing and customer growth officer, Wendy’s announced today.

Hassan, who joined the burger chain effective immediately, replaces Lindsay Radkoski, who has served as Wendy’s U.S. chief marketing officer since 2024. Radkoski will depart after a transition period over the coming weeks, ending a nearly 15-year career with the brand, Wendy’s stated.

Hassan’s appointment comes as part of Wendy’s ongoing “Project Fresh” turnaround, which was announced in November. The revitalization strategy started with looking at customer data to better inform marketing. Wendy’s has had a hard time winning back customers—its same-restaurant sales have continued to fall, down 7.8% in the first quarter of this year and 7% in the second quarter. In April, the chain awarded its U.S. media business to WPP Media to more efficiently work with the fast-feeder’s longtime creative partner, VML.

“My focus will be on reigniting that passionate connection with our brand to show up more powerfully in every experience, everywhere our fans meet us,” Hassan said in a statement regarding his new role.

Under Hassan, McDonald’s marketing mined so-called “fan truths” about the brand to help inform campaigns, including its celebrity meals, adult Happy Meals, the Grimace Birthday Meal and manga-inspired “WcDonald’s” campaign, all by Wieden+Kennedy New York. He left McDonald’s in early 2025 and was replaced by Alyssa Buetikofer, the former chief marketing officer of McDonald’s Canada.

17578: Another Perspective On Whistleblowers In Adland.

2026-08-25T00:36:36.765-05:00

MediaPost published a perspective on the WPP whistleblower lawsuit that made one significant point:

Don’t rely on agency self-reporting. Demand log-level data for programmatic buys and contractually insist on third-party audits for all barter or non-transparent arrangements. If an agency claims an inventory pool isn’t auditable, treat that as a red flag.

This notion could be directly applied to the history of DEIBA+ in Adland.

That is, White advertising agencies cannot be trusted with self-reporting, as firms often inflated representation figures by counting minority employees like janitorial maintenance, security, and cafeteria workers.

Additionally, White advertising agencies cannot be trusted with self-regulation, as firms routinely engage in performative propaganda, heat shields, and delegating diversity.

Alas, no one ever succeeded in demanding third-party audits—or disputing White advertising agencies’ classic excuses for non-compliance, lack of commitment, and absence of accountability. Forget red flags—White flags are the weapon of choice.

BTW iconic DEIBA+ whistleblowers in Adland were never able to pursue a $100 million lawsuit.

The WPP scenario exposes schemes involving media, which mirrors Adland’s duplicity involving minorities.

The Foster Whistleblower Case: How Holdco Culture Enabled WPP’s $350M Mess

By Maarten Albarda, Featured Contributor

It has been a week of legal fireworks, relevant to day-to-day marketing management. No, I am not (yet) commenting on the federal trial brought by 29 U.S. states accusing Meta of designing manipulative features that addict children and harm teen mental health on Facebook and Instagram. That trial is underway in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland.

I am talking about Richard Foster’s $100 million wrongful termination and retaliation lawsuit against WPP, playing out in the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

The latest legal filings in this suit against WPP make for grim reading. Internal audit details from Sony allege undisclosed markups, shell brokers used as financial warehouses, and missing rebates disguised as principal media buying in China.

To understand the scope, let’s understand what happened. A 2023 Chinese government probe into GroupM (now WPP Media) executives over kickbacks led to criminal convictions. And now we learn that a Sony investigation alleges that WPP used 47 shell brokers to improperly retain $350 million in client rebates in 2024 alone. GroupM allegedly passed off proprietary media deals to launder those funds into corporate profit while pitching artificial “80% discounts” to clients.

I don’t think you can hold WPP corporate fully responsible for the rogue mechanics of a local scam. The individuals in China clearly acted for their own personal enrichment in a market where opacity is sadly often standard procedure.

Still, WPP corporate does not get off scot-free. It clearly missed the mark in governance. By aggressively pushing principal media trading across its network to juice corporate margins, WPP’s leadership set the tone at the top. They created an environment where local executives were guided into pursuing principal media income to bolster agency performance (and with that, their personal performance score).

If I were a juror on the Foster case, I’d view the Sony findings as a crucial signal. They show WPP built a culture where principal-beneficial buying was incentivized, leaving the back door wide open for local leadership to take it to extreme levels.

Which raises the question every marketer should ask: How many other “Chinas” exist in agency holding company networks? And why did it take a client audit by Sony to expose this?

It’s fair to say (again) that marketers should stop treating principal media as a harmless discount. When your agency buys inventory upfront and resells it to you, they aren’t your fiduciary agent anymore. They’re a vendor selling goods they own. If you don’t know the exact markup, you’re funding their profit margins (and executive bonuses).

To prevent this from happening, you should require explicit opt-outs for proprietary or non-transparent media, unless your C-suite approves a written business case. Demand clear visibility into media flowcharts and mandate proof-of-performance data down to a detailed performance level (and compare/contrast that against “normal” performance for “normal” paid media buys).

The agency model is shifting. Agencies need profit, but you need transparency. Set the rules in your contract now, or your media dollars will end up paying someone else’s bonus.