16915: Years Worth Of Content On Ageism In Adland.

 

Advertising Age published yet another lengthy report on ageism in Adland.

 

Gen Yers and Gen Zers will not have the patience to read the content, and Boomers will not have the stamina to complete it.

 

Why, it’s multi-generational fluff.

16893: L’Oréal Real Old Advertising Concept.

 

L’Oréal ran this self-promotional advertisement in The New York Times, hyping the company’s performative PR and heat shields on generational diversity.

 

See, there are career opportunities for Old White Guys and Old White Gals bemoaning the perceived ageism in Adland.

16810: Musing, Mulling, And Munching On Mickey D’s And More.

 

Muse by Clios interviewed DDB Worldwide Chairman Emeritus Keith Reinhard, who shared his thoughts on the state of creativity, challenges past and present, iconic campaigns, client-agency relationships, and more.

 

Covering his 50+ years in Adland, Reinhard also wondered “if today’s advertising industry might be well advised to embrace or re-embrace generational inclusion along with the commitment to gender and racial diversity.”

 

Not surprisingly, racial and ethnic equality received less attention than the Hamburglar—and the alleged diversity dilemma of ageism against Old White Guys and Old White Gals emerged as an imperative.

 

In Adland, You Deserve A Break Today does not apply to people of color.

 

Keith Reinhard on Creativity, Agency-Client Bonds and the Hamburglar

Looking back, and mulling what’s ahead

 

By Amy Corr

 

Keith Reinhard serves as chairman emeritus of DDB Worldwide. In a career spanning more than half a century, he has worked as a writer, art director and creative group head, and held key roles in agency management.

 

Transcending the Mad Men paradigm, Reinhard has shaped consumer tastes and stoked the engines of media and commerce on a global scale.

 

He’s father to the Hamburglar, and along with his creative team birthed McDonald’s brand-defining “You Deserve a Break Today” campaigns in the 1970s, plus the unforgettable “Two-all-beef-patties-special-sauce-lettuce-cheese-pickles-onions, on a sesame seed bun” mantra woven into copy and jingles. “Just Like a Good Neighbor, State Farm Is There” was his idea, too. Keith also worked on Volkswagen, Polaroid, Amtrak, Xerox, Mars and General Mills, to name just a few. On the business side, Reinhard helped merge Doyle Dane Bernbach and Needham Harper Worldwide into the DDB network, which he led as chairman and CEO for 16 years.

 

We spoke with Reinhard about the challenges plaguing the industry today, the importance of agency-client trust, his favorite campaigns and the return of his beloved Hamburglar.

 

Muse: What’s your take on the state of creativity today and the trust between an agency and client?

 

Keith Reinhard: I’m sure it varies from those clients who see their agencies only as interchangeable suppliers chosen for the lowest price, to clients who value their agencies as trusted partners. It was encouraging to see some examples of the latter on stage at the Clios this year. In the long term, the only clients that will value their agencies as long-term partners are clients who understand the value of long-term brand building. I doubt that such clients represent the majority of advertisers today. In part, that’s because we have failed to make a convincing case for the value of building brand loyalty over time, which has always been a brand’s best defense against price competition.

 

As for the state of creativity in general, the fragmentation of media channels makes it difficult to establish and maintain brand integrity and instead, encourages one-off messages hastily prepared on a low budget, subjected to instant A/B testing, and placed by algorithms as interrupters on every available social media channel. While that seems like a condition more conducive to mindless repetition of breathless product claims than to brand building, there are notable exceptions. One of my favorites is DDB’s award winning apology campaign for Skittles—a prime example of contemporary creativity at its best. The brilliant multi-channel idea is absolutely on-brand and true to Skittles idiosyncratic personality. During a “press conference” on Twitch and TikTok, a Skittles “communications director” apologizes individually to thousands of protesters for replacing the lime-flavored green Skittles with a green apple flavor thirteen years ago. He promises to restore the lime flavor, at least for a while. The social media campaign was augmented by other media including a huge sign in Times Square where Skittles apologized to individual tweets.

 

I’ve also been impressed by Sakara Life, the plant-based food delivery service founded by two young women in 2011 that is now a $150 million powerhouse. They’ve given their brand a clear purpose with a distinctive brand personality that connects with viewers with advice like “make love, not dinner.”

 

I believe the level of creativity will rise in the future as young creators and their clients begin to realize the difference between a click and an emotional connection, the difference between creating a buzz and creating a brand, the difference between a one-off stunt and an enduring brand story and the big difference between big data and a big idea.

 

As for the state of creativity in television, I didn’t see any Super Bowl commercials I wished I had done. But then again, I’m not the target audience. At least the Rabbit Hole commercial for Tubi used storytelling to get my attention, built suspense and then paid off with a promise of free movies. All without borrowing interest from a celebrity. That in itself was refreshing.

 

What were some agency/client trust/bonds you experienced in your career?

 

When Tom Morrill, State Farm’s chief marketing officer in the ’60s and ’70s, was asked if he’d ever consider a new agency, he said he would not. Instead, he said if he needed fresh thinking, he would ask us for new ideas or even new people. But he had no interest in going through a search process or acclimating a new agency to the insurance business that we, his trusted longtime agency partner, knew so well. Tom’s confidence in us laid the groundwork for a relationship that lasted for more than 60 years.

 

To shake things up in the Washington-Baltimore market, Fred Turner, CEO of McDonald’s, once granted us the freedom to try any new idea we wanted if we stayed within the budget and didn’t do anything illegal. Turner startled us by saying, “Don’t bother to show me storyboards. I trust you. Just show me the finished work.” This level of trust motivated us to work even harder to deliver a remarkable product, which we did. Fred liked it and ran it with success.

 

A strong bond of trust with Anheuser-Busch figured importantly in that great client supporting the offbeat, off brand “Wassup” campaign for Budweiser, which August Busch IV said brought more value to the brand than any other single idea in the brewery’s history. It won the Grand Prix in Cannes in 2000.

 

What’s the biggest challenge facing the industry today and how can it be overcome?

 

It might be the lack of time. The time to think, time to shape an idea and let it grow, time to let it work in the marketplace, time to work together, time to care, time to rest and reflect. I have no idea how to overcome our obsession with speed.

 

What was the biggest challenge you faced in your career?

 

By far the biggest challenge I faced was merging two creative agency networks into one in the mid-eighties. I was CEO of Needham Harper Worldwide but my idol was Bill Bernbach, who had revolutionized the industry when he founded Doyle Dane Bernbach in 1949. After Bill died in 1982, my dream was to combine his agency with Needham to establish a new global creative force built on Bill’s legacy. As part of the creation of Omnicom, we found a way to do this but as an observer wrote in the New York Times after our announcement, “Mergers are hell!” I understood what he meant as we started to put the agencies together. Turf battles had to be resolved in major markets, client conflicts had to be dealt with and differing systems had to be integrated. But thanks to the resolve of a top management team that shared a vision, we were able to create a common culture grounded in a shared belief that creativity is the most powerful force in business.

 

What’s something that exists now that you wish existed earlier in your career or you’re happy it didn’t exist earlier on?

 

Google could have helped us earlier. Back then, finding answers to questions took a lot more time.

 

On the other hand, I’m glad we didn’t have the science and technology that today claims to instantly determine an ad’s effectiveness. As Bill Bernbach said: “However much we would like advertising to be a science, the fact is that it is not. It is a subtle, ever-changing art, defying formularization, flowering on freshness and withering on imitation.” Today’s instant A/B testing makes it impossible for a good campaign to “wear in” and would almost certainly have killed Volkswagen’s game changing “Think Small” campaign which, when launched, was met by skepticism from both consumers and dealers.

 

What were some of your favorite campaigns to work on?

 

There are so many—Volkswagen, Polaroid, Amtrak, Xerox, Mars, General Mills. But I’ll highlight three.

 

McDonald’s was a great client. They understood the value of making emotional connections with their customers. In 1971, we created their first national advertising campaign by focusing on the McDonald’s experience instead of just their hamburgers. Our kick-off campaign, “You Deserve a Break Today,” encouraged people to take a little respite from their daily routines and enjoy the food, folks, and fun at McDonald’s. We followed the initial campaign with another customer focused effort, “You, you’re the one,” which also made it into the Madison Avenue Songbook. The Big Mac jingle, “Two all-beef-patties-special-sauce-lettuce- cheese-pickles-onions-on-a-sesame-seed bun,” created by my team in the ’70s, is still remembered today. While I personally gave birth to the Hamburglar, working with the team to create McDonaldland, home of the Grimace and all the other characters, was truly a blast.

 

I also loved working on all the Anheuser-Busch brands starting with “Head for the Mountains” for Busch Beer and then all the work we did for Bud Light and Budweiser. As with McDonald’s, great advertising is only possible when you have great clients. Anheuser-Busch was one of the best. They proved that big time when they bought and supported the aforementioned “Wassup” campaign for Budweiser, a campaign that went viral before we knew what viral even meant and won the Gran Prix at Cannes in 2000.

 

State Farm was one of my favorites. In the ’70s, new research pointed out that State Farm’s most important competitive advantage was the fact that their agents had their offices in neighborhoods where people lived, in contrast to competitor companies who often housed their agents in big buildings in a business district. This insight led to our creating a long running campaign, “Just Like a Good Neighbor, State Farm is There.” We contracted Barry Manilow to write the tune to which we wrote three verses—one for car insurance, one for home insurance and another for life insurance. The jingle is no longer used but I’m pleased that “Jake from State Farm” is still using our tag line.

 

As the person behind the Hamburglar, are you excited to see his resurrection in ad campaigns?

 

As the father of the little burger bandit, I’m pleased to see he’s up to his old tricks and still getting by with a limited vocabulary. Robble.

 

What “Mad Men” experience can you share with us?

 

Things were different back then. In the early ’70s, I was head of the creative department at the Needham agency in Chicago, and I noticed that a young woman had joined us as a trainee in the account executive department. I wasn’t directly involved in her accounts, so I had never met her. But I remember thinking it was good that we were finally going to see at least one woman become an account executive. Then one night when I was working late, this young woman burst into my office and breathlessly asked if she could hide under my desk!  I said “Uh, yeah, I guess so, but why are you hiding?” She named a figure in agency management and said, “I think he’s been drinking, and he’s chasing me down the halls!” This promising young trainee hung out in my office until we could assure her that the halls were clear. She then went on to become the agency’s youngest senior vice president, heading up accounts like General Mills and McDonald’s. A few years later, the amazing Rose-Lee Simons, became my amazing wife.

 

Anything else you’d like to discuss?

 

In a recent meeting, Vincent Gardner, composer and lead trombonist for the Jazz at Lincoln Center Orchestra, was asked by a young musician how to become great. Gardner advised the young man to “seek out the oldest person you can find who’s doing what you want to do. Tapping into that person’s experience will be the very best way you can become great.”

 

Gardner’s counsel made me wonder if today’s advertising industry might be well advised to embrace or re-embrace generational inclusion along with the commitment to gender and racial diversity. As a young copywriter, I learned a lot from mentors who were in their forties and fifties. Yet, as of a few years ago, an IPA Excellence paper stated that staffers over the age of 50 represent only 6 percent of ad land’s workforce. By comparison, 22 percent of professionals in finance were over 50 and a Writer’s Guild survey showed 50 to be the median age of Hollywood screenwriters. When last I checked, consultants range in age from 40 to 60 which may be why they have the kind of access to clients’ C-suites that is often denied to ad agencies. Does it matter that today’s advertising industry, unlike other professions, undervalues experience? I think it might.

16800: Belated Overreaction Of The Week.

 

Yesterday—October 9, 2024—was Ageism Awareness Day.

 

The United Nations commemorates International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; National Association of Chronic Disease Directors marks National Day of Racial Healing; St. John’s University–School of Law acknowledges Anti-Racism Day; British Columbia salutes Anti-Racism Awareness Week.

 

Maybe Adland should launch Systemic Racism Awareness Day. Or Cultural Cluelessness Awareness Day—which sounds like an oxymoron.

16799: The Silent Exit Seeks To Make A Loud Entrance.

Campaign Asia spotlighted a study conducted by the Experience Advocacy Taskforce (EAT)—released ahead of Ageism Awareness Day—which focused on the growing concern around ageism in Australia’s advertising industry. “The Silent Exit” examined the exodus of older employees—via reluctant resignation, redundancy, or reduction in force—at White advertising agencies and media enterprises.

 

Not sure how Adland Down Under compares to Adland in the US and UK, but the wailing and gnashing of dentures appears to be similar.

 

The suggested “solutions” mirror those concocted to address racial and ethnic inequality in the global industry. Additionally, EAT officials strongly recommend integrating ageism into overall DEIBA+ initiatives and heat shields. As such proposed measures will likely be enthusiastically embraced and executed by Adland elders, expect Old White Guys and Old White Gals to leapfrog people of color in the imperative for diversity, equity, inclusion, etc.

 

Around the world, it’s the same old story—systemic racism advances with age.

 

Side Note: The royalty-free stock image illustrating the Campaign Asia content (depicted above) was inverted, resulting in ‘EXIT” appearing backwards. Wonder if the responsible editorial designer was an inexperienced newbie or inattentive veteran.

 

The silent exit: Why ageism in advertising continues to force out senior talent

 

As adland grapples with an ageing workforce, a new study by the Experience Advocacy Taskforce reveals the exodus of seasoned professionals, driven by age bias and structural challenges.

 

By Rahat Kapur

 

Ahead of Ageism Awareness Day on October 9, a new study by the Experience Advocacy Taskforce (EAT) in partnership with Advertising Industry Careers (AIC) sets out the ongoing challenge of multigenerational workforce management in Australia’s advertising industry.

 

The report highlights the quiet but significant departure of professionals aged 45-54, pointing to age bias and structural barriers as primary contributors.

 

Surveying 130 former professionals from full-service agencies, media agencies, creative agencies, and media owners, the report shows that over half (51.54%) of these exits occur in the mid-career age bracket of 45-54. Even more concerning, nearly 70% of those who entered the industry as ‘young guns’—starting their careers between 18 and 24—have left prematurely. These individuals are not retiring but often being squeezed out by an industry increasingly focused on younger talent.

 

Owen Joyce, chief operations officer of AIC, told Campaign: “Senior people can sometimes dismiss new trends—TikTok is a great example—and this may make them appear set in their ways. There’s a perception that younger people better understand the social platforms because they spend a lot of time on them personally, but the survey respondents indicate this is less than 2%.”

 

The findings challenge common industry assumptions, particularly the belief that older professionals struggle with digital advancements. Fewer than 2% of respondents cited an inability to adapt to the digital age as their reason for leaving. A far larger group (35.38%) left due to involuntary redundancies, revealing the disproportionate impact of economic pressures on experienced employees. Stress and burnout, typically associated with mid-career exits, accounted for around 10.77% of cases, with a similar percentage moving to client-side roles.

 

Greg ‘Sparrow’ Graham, founder of the EAT, noted that this exodus, while understated, signals a deeper issue: “The ‘silent exit’ is a wake-up call. To remain competitive, the industry must value the expertise and contributions of seasoned professionals and collectively work together to make age a non-issue for the next generation.”

 

Beyond redundancies, the report delves into recruitment challenges. Despite 23.08% of those who left senior roles still seeking work in advertising, many face significant barriers, including being ‘ghosted’ by recruiters. One respondent, aged 50-54, shared their frustration: “I applied for 200+ jobs. How many interviews do you think I got? Zero.”

 

While 70% of respondents expressed a willingness to take roles below their previous level, showing a continued passion for the industry, this raises concerns about the long-term health of the workforce. Joyce observed: “When advertisers turn their budgets back on, everyone will need to grow their teams, and often poaching, above-market salaries, and unsustainable perks result. AIC believes there is merit in looking at ways to manage these inevitable peaks and troughs, so that removing senior people isn’t seen as a quick way to find cost efficiencies.”

 

The report also highlights the pervasive ‘move up or move out’ mentality within the industry, where seasoned professionals face pressure to continuously advance or risk being pushed out. This mindset, combined with structural ageism, leaves many over 40 feeling undervalued or irrelevant, despite their expertise, leading to an unnecessary loss of talent.

 

This challenge is not just confined to Australia. Across Asia Pacific, more young people are grappling with whether advertising is the right career path, contributing to the broader problem of managing a multigenerational workforce.

 

Linda Robson, EAT committee member and founder of The Hummingbirds, who spent 17 years working across Asia, highlighted these regional differences. She told Campaign: “In Australia, we’re seeing a talent drain over 40, but I suspect it may be even younger in some markets. I remember running a treasure hunt activity in Vietnam as part of a training energiser. One of the tasks was ‘find someone over 40’. We had over 70 people in the workshop at the time, and they couldn’t find a single person over 40. For the record, the only person who qualified was me.

 

“In those 17 years, working across 13 countries, I didn’t go to a single retirement party, and there were plenty of colleagues who left because of involuntary redundancies. So, what does that tell you?”

 

To address this talent drain, the report suggests businesses must eliminate age bias in hiring, develop creative strategies to retain experienced professionals, and provide tailored support and career pathways for those not seeking to climb the corporate ladder. Prioritising retention of senior talent and integrating ageism into DEI initiatives are essential steps to fostering a sustainable, multigenerational workforce.

 

“Perhaps this is something that needs more attention from diversity and inclusion teams. It’s also worth professionals themselves understanding when they are at risk and being proactive. Clearly it is imperative we offer greater support and career pathways for our more experienced workforce,” concluded Joyce. “Embracing the expertise of those over 40 is essential to fostering innovation and resilience within our field.”

 

Source: Campaign Asia

16767: The Voting Wrongs Act.

MediaPost spotlighted a video titled, “Dear Young People, Don’t Vote,” by Nail Communications. Designed to motivate Millennials and Gen Zers to vote via reverse psychology, the message features elderly people encouraging young people not to vote, declaring how the older generation controls ultra-conservativism in society.

 

At least one MediaPost visitor took offense, feeling the stereotypical depiction of old folks reflected ageism and promoted divisiveness. If Carl Warner is still around, he’d likely be outraged too.

 

Another point not mentioned is the lack of diversity; that is, the video only shows White senior citizens. Did the creators deliberately presume most people of color lean towards being liberal Democrats? Were they purposely avoiding the politically incorrect territory of attaching anti-voting sentiments—even facetiously—to those who benefited from, fought for, and died over the Voting Rights Act?

 

It doesn’t help that Nail Communications appears to be a White advertising agency. Or perhaps that nails the explanation.

 

On a final note, the overall “Yes We Cancel” campaign—intended to target a younger audience—is trying too hard. In that regard, the concept is culturally clueless and deserves a 👎 vote.

 

Don’t Read This Column

 

By Joe Mandese

 

See what I did there? Using a little reverse psychology to get you to do the opposite — click through and read today’s “Red, White & Blog” — if only as an act of authoritarian defiance. Well, that’s actually the point of today’s column: using reverse psychology — or more aptly, child psychology — to get young people to vote in this year’s election.

 

As you probably already know, young Americans are notoriously loath to do so, so Providence, Rhode Island agency Nail figured out a way to hit a hammer on their heads in one of the most ingenious spots I’ve come across yet this election cycle.

 

The spot, “Dear Young People, Don’t Vote” features some crotchety elders telling them to sit this one out, because, well, “everything is fine the way it is.”

 

Forget about climate change, tax cuts for the rich, school shootings and a candidate threatening to undermine democracy — it’s old folks that run America, the spot advises young voters, recommending that they stick to tending their social media memes.

 

“Only 46% of people 18-34 years old voted in the last election,” the YouTube video’s description reminds us, adding: “So the elderly have a disproportionate influence on our politics and our country.”

 

It’s enough to make a Millennial’s blood boil, and get a Gen Zer to get off their butt.

 

At least that’s what Nail Creative Partner Alex Beckett hopes, noting that his “client is democracy.”

 

“We specifically didn’t want to have a partisan client because it felt like that would drive off these ultra-low engagement young voters we’re trying to activate,” he continues, adding: “They’re not partisan. They’re not even non-partisan. They’re anti-partisan.”

 

The spot is intended to drive young voters to a broader “Yes We Cancel” campaign consisting of a website, videos, a store and an Instagram page all built around a tongue-in-cheek homage to the Obama campaign’s iconic “Yes We Can” call to arms.

 

Now that’s what I call “cancel culture” — but you know, the good kind.

16716: SHRM SMH SH*T.

Digiday Media’s Worklife and Fast Company reported on the decision by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) to delete the E from its DEI strategy, and even reorder the remaining letters to I&D—emphasizing inclusion ahead of diversity.

 

According to Fast Company, the SHRM CEO explained the decision as follows: “We’re going to lead with inclusion, because we need a world where inclusion is front and center. And that means inclusion for all, not some people. Everyone has a right to feel that they belong in the workplace and that they are included.”

 

Worklife also quoted the SHRM CEO as follows: “I’ve concluded that I think what happened is the full definition of inclusion must encompass equity. Fairness, equity, decency, civility, and belonging are inherently virtues of inclusivity.”

 

Adland will undoubtedly embrace the opportunity to further diminish racial and ethnic equity. Indeed, the systemically racist industry has in recent years prioritized equity, extending it—in descending order—to other groups including White women, White LGBTQIA+, White people with disabilities, White neurodiverse individuals, Old White Guys and Gals, White conservatives, White people without degrees, and White house pets.

 

Yes, the ruling majority at White advertising agencies will declare the full definition of inclusion encompasses equity. But equity will be awarded in unequal portions—and the exclusive will define inclusivity.

 

:::::

 

Worklife Content

 

‘A deeply unequal act:’ HR execs alarmed by SHRM’s decision to drop the ‘E’ from ‘DE&I’

 

By Cloey Callahan

 

HR professionals have reacted in horror at the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM)’s decision to drop the word “equity” from its diversity, equity, and inclusion strategy.

 

The decision, announced by the primary national trade group for PR professionals on Jul. 10., follows a widespread rollback of DE&I programs across corporate organizations, in the last year or so.

 

The SHRM claimed the change was prompted by numerous surveys with employers and staff which showed that the word equity caused more confusion than diversity and inclusion. But the move has caused uproar in the HR community, with people turning to social platforms to air their disappointment. Some HR execs have canceled their SHRM memberships, while others withdrew speaker proposals from SHRM’s Inclusion Conference in November. A petition opposing SHRM’s decision was also signed by hundreds.

 

“By removing the very element that addresses systemic disparities, SHRM is sidestepping the uncomfortable but necessary work,” said Amira K.S.Barger, executive vp, health communications and head of DE&I communications and advisory at Edelman. Others have called it a “glaring betrayal” which will weaken DEI initiatives and stunt progress.

 

WorkLife recently compiled a state of DE&I by the numbers, helping show just how uncertain businesses are about how to approach the topic. For example, more than a third of business executives said their organization is facing uncertainty regarding how to move ahead with their DEI programming in the wake of increased challenges to corporate diversity programs, according to Littler.

 

But the SHRM news felt like a nail in the coffin for most HR executives, especially ones who have been approaching their roles progressively. SHRM is the leading society for HR professionals, and after that organization made a clear statement, HR leaders were left wondering what to do next.

 

“SHRM knew there would be disagreement with our decision to lead with inclusion and diversity,” said SHRM president and CHRO Johnny C. Taylor, Jr. in a statement to WorkLife. “We welcome differing points of view and we value diversity of opinion. We are encouraged that we’ve received significant interest from HR and other business professionals who have become SHRM members and have registered for Inclusion24 in Denver this past week because they understand our steadfast commitment to equity principles while we lead with inclusion and diversity.”

 

WorkLife spoke with Taylor last week following the announcement. “The fact that we are not using the full array of letters in the various acronyms that have evolved over time does not mean we don’t think belonging and accessibility matter, we do,” said Taylor in that interview. “I’ve concluded that I think what happened is the full definition of inclusion must encompass equity. Fairness, equity, decency, civility, and belonging are inherently virtues of inclusivity.”

 

We asked a range of people leaders to share their perspectives.

 

Answers were edited for clarity and flow.

 

“I find SHRM’s decision to remove ‘equity’ from DE&I troubling. Given the organization’s influence across the HR community, their decision could have ripple effects across the business world.” – Jennifer Risi, founder and president of The Sway Effect.

 

“SHRM’s decision to remove equity from its approach to DE&I sends the wrong signal to companies and leaders. Equity is essential to the success, productivity, and DNA of a successful modern workplace. By taking it out of the equation, SHRM is essentially telling companies that equity doesn’t matter; it’s communicating that we should focus on hiring diverse people, but not treating them fairly or addressing the imbalances that they are experiencing. We need to do better for our people, and HR organizations need to lead the charge in making sure we are celebrating and investing in diversity and inclusion, but making sure that equity is never pushed to the side.” – Sarah Reynolds, CMO of HiBob.

 

“SHRM’s efforts to acquiesce exemplify what I coined the ‘Red Rover Effect’ – a common pattern where initial solidarity from well-intentioned institutions and individuals turns to apathy when they encounter discomfort and the daunting magnitude of the task ahead. By removing the very element that addresses systemic disparities, SHRM is sidestepping the uncomfortable but necessary work. This move not only weakens DEI initiatives but also hinders genuine progress.” – Amira K.S. Barger, executive vp, health communications and head of DE&I communications and advisory at Edelman.

 

“SHRM’s decision to remove ‘equity’ from DEI initiatives is concerning. It undermines the need to address underlying disparities and will risk the progress being made in workplace inclusion efforts. It is time for HR professionals to look at more progressive human resources organizations that take a bold approach towards HR’s role in building an equitable world.” – Rashim Mogha, CEO of eWOW.

 

“SHRM’s claim of ‘Better Workplaces. Better World’ seems questionable in light of this move. I have decided to withdraw my SHRM Inclusion Conference speaker proposal due to this decision, which I find misaligned with my values. It’s heartening to witness many individuals with SHRM credentials distancing themselves from the organization. If equity and justice are not the end goal in your DEI framework, I don’t see the relevance.” – Nika White, CEO and founder of Nika White Consulting.

 

“It is profoundly disheartening to witness the SHRM actively downplaying, and possibly plotting to scrap, their commitment to equity. As a staunch advocate for truly inclusive, diverse, and equitable workplaces, I view SHRM’s recent pivot not just as misguided, but as a glaring betrayal of everything human resources stands for the comfort of those whose organizations who wield power, privilege, and choose performative measures over systemic change. SHRM’s shift appears to be a political maneuver, a capitulation to external pressures that have no place in the realm of human-centered advocacy. By sidelining equity, SHRM is effectively choosing to minimize advocacy for those who are marginalized the most. This is not just disappointing; it’s unacceptable. As such, I am canceling my SHRM membership. We need human resource organizations that fight for the equity of humans with vigor, not ones that withdraw in times of challenge.” – Rocki Howard, HR advisor to Textio.

 

“I’m a little wary of how much a name change can realistically bring about SHRM’s stated objective of addressing ‘the current shortcomings of DE&I programs.’ To my mind, the mention of ‘societal backlash and increasing polarization’ suggests that this is just a re-branding to make it more digestible and less provocative to those who oppose the concept of equity — which won’t address any actual problems of implementation. I see this move as potentially being a distraction.” – Caroline Fox, global DE&I strategy lead at Tenth Revolution Group.

 

“Despite SHRM’s best intentions, this sends the wrong message as removing the emphasis on equity only perpetuates the structural and institutional biases against underrepresented groups.” – Neil Costa, founder and CEO of HireClix.

 

“SHRM, understandably, wants to focus on inclusion because it’s the most actionable part of DEI. Equity is hard to define, hard to deliver. It’s also expensive. For all those reasons, few organizations know how to make it more than a word. But not knowing isn’t reason enough for not doing it. And taking the word out of the work takes accountability and awareness with it. Equity is how organizations get ROI on I&D. Equity is how they sustain all those efforts they’re standing and expending resources for, equity is not fair people, but fair systems. How can an organization prioritize systemic change if it doesn’t even name the thing it’s trying to change?” – Janet M. Stovall, global head of diversity, equity, and inclusion at the NeuroLeadership Institute.

 

“SHRM’s decision ultimately shows us that DEI as an acronym isn’t working. In the organization’s eyes, it’s too complex and needs to be simplified; in my mind, it’s too simple for people to understand what DEI initiatives seek to achieve. However, making this statement in the current climate feels like a misstep, considering the incendiary language being used by DEI critics like Elon Musk and those trying to introduce ‘MEI’ as a replacement. By HR professionals dropping the term DEI, it somewhat endorses the semantics of that group, which is growing ever louder. Changing an acronym is not going to make the noise go away.” – Emma Obanye, CEO of OneTech.

 

“Ultimately, the goal should be to create meaningful change rather than simply adhering to acronyms. Our experience of delivering company-wide initiatives has taught us that it’s about bringing people with you and good implementation. Whether we call it DEI, I&D, or something else, the focus should remain on tangible actions that result in inclusive environments, celebrate diversity, and promote fairness in opportunities and outcomes.” – Tim Mart, co-founder of Know You More.

 

“I think the push-back against DE&I could be an indicator of people being generally overwhelmed with the volume and level of detail of information they’re constantly confronted with. And given it’s difficult to tie to ROI, it’s understandable that brands then pull the plug on their DE&I programs because they just see it as cost rather than creating value. But that’s not true. It’s more that brands just need to do the right thing AND do it right.” – Ralf Waterfield, director of sustainability, Pearlfisher.

 

“The effectiveness of this new direction will depend on how SHRM communicates and implements it and whether employee engagement and experience are kept at the forefront. There is significant potential for more nuanced and effective HR practices, but there must be strong frameworks and goals in place. Without these, there could be confusion and inconsistency in how organizations achieve diversity and inclusion.” – Dan Buckley, CEO of Cognexo.

 

“I believe it’s a bad philosophy under the guise of good business. Many enterprise organizations have been walking back their commitments to DEI, which were often performative, since 2021 and have been loud about it since 2022. I have no doubt this pivot is about retaining corporate relationships/revenue and as a hedge to the upcoming election. I think SHRM taking the position as a more palatable partner ‘for all,’ as opposed to being a steadfast advocate of the work itself, is a valid consideration for most businesses, but not for one that’s historically been entrusted to be the industry’s leader and voice. SHRM’s place amongst HR professionals has been eroding for a decade. Corporate revenue aside, they’re still a member-based organization and I’m hopeful they have a strong enough strategy to withstand and repair the fractures they’ve caused amongst their members with this change.” – Chris Hagood, CEO at AstutEdge.

 

“The irony is SHRM taking equity out of its semantics is a move to make DE&I more palatable to those who are offended by the idea of making work fairer. That is a deeply unequal act, which shows that they were never practicing equity in the first place. Not every voice can carry the same weight, when it’s been unequal for some for so long. You can’t pander to the ones who have been privileged and still achieve equity. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. SHRM is an HR lobby, not an DE&I lobby. HR’s role is to support companies, not the humans. And who runs the companies, by and large? It’s successful branding that coined the term Human Resources.” – Marisa Thomas, CMO, Good-Loop.

 

:::::

 

Fast Company Content

 

SHRM, a leading HR organization, is no longer focusing on ‘equity’ in its DEI approach

 

The group’s switch to the acronym ‘I&D’—which stands for inclusion and diversity, but no longer equity—has sparked strong pushback from some HR and DEI experts.

 

By Pavithra Mohan

 

This week, SHRM, a leading organization for HR professionals, announced that it would no longer be using the term “equity.” In a LinkedIn post, the organization—formerly known as the Society for Human Resource Management—shared that it would now use the acronym “I&D,” which stands for inclusion and diversity, stripping away the “equity” portion of “IE&D.”

 

SHRM noted that while its “commitment to advancing equity remains steadfast,” the organization believed that leading with inclusion would catalyze “holistic change” in the workplace and beyond. On LinkedIn, SHRM also quoted president and CEO Johnny Taylor, who had introduced the change during the organization’s recent annual conference: “We’re going to lead with inclusion, because we need a world where inclusion is front and center. And that means inclusion for all, not some people. Everyone has a right to feel that they belong in the workplace and that they are included.”

 

To outside observers, this might seem like a minor distinction, just a matter of semantics. But the decision was met with immediate criticism from HR professionals and DEI experts across social media—many of whom said it was a mistake—and a step backwards, for SHRM to distance itself from the language of equity.

 

“I find SHRM’s decision to remove ‘Equity’ from DEI deeply troubling,” one HR executive and SHRM member wrote on LinkedIn. “Incorporating equity into HR processes is not just important; it’s essential. Without it, can we genuinely claim to be advancing DEI(B) work?” An HR consultant said she would likely distance herself from the organization going forward, despite years of being a “card-carrying member.”

 

Others claimed that the move was disappointing but not much of a surprise, citing the costs associated with SHRM’s certification program—which is often a requirement or preference for HR positions—and arguing many of its resources were not particularly helpful or up-to-date.

 

In an interview with Fast Company, Taylor claimed the change to I&D was part of a broader evolution and had grown out of conversations with workers and HR experts who expressed confusion over what the “E” in DEI terminology represented. “We started hearing this noise about the E that had become a big deal,” he said. “It wasn’t that people were anti-equity. There was confusion around: What did it mean? We couldn’t get agreement even amongst DEI professionals. We would hear this from HR professionals and frankly employees, who would say: Is it equal opportunity, or is it equal outcome?” It had become a “divisive issue” in trainings, according to Taylor. “Ultimately, our efforts are intended to unify people and not divide them,” he added. When it comes to inclusion and diversity, however, he believes there is “universal or near universal agreement” on what those terms mean.

 

Taylor expressed surprised at the vociferous pushback on LinkedIn, though he argued the response had been somewhat split. He also claimed nobody in the SHRM network had canceled their membership yet, though he noted that could change in the coming months. “There’s a chance that people will not join [or renew], but there’s also a chance that we will increase memberships,” he said. (He added that SHRM’s membership and certification fees were on par with market rates, and that the majority of member dues were footed by companies.)

 

Many critics also saw SHRM’s decision as yet another instance of an organization walking back its commitment to the work of diversity, equity, and inclusion amid a wave of anti-DEI sentiment. SHRM acknowledged that backdrop in its LinkedIn post, albeit without pointing the blame at politicians and business leaders who have helped stoke it. “By emphasizing inclusion-first, we aim to address the current shortcomings of DE&I programs, which have led to societal backlash and increasing polarization,” the post read.

 

Taylor told Fast Company that if SHRM was in fact capitulating to anti-DEI crusaders, the organization would have scrapped those initiatives altogether. “I think some of the comments suggested that we were under pressure on politics or from groups who were anti-DEI,” he said. “If that were the motivator here, we would have killed this whole thing. Like, why talk about it at all?”

 

Still, the outcry over SHRM’s decision seems to underscore the precarity of DEI efforts in the workplace. Since the Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action in 2023, corporate DEI initiatives have faced lawsuits and legal attacks from conservative activists. As Fast Company has previously reported, companies had already quietly disinvested from DEI work prior to the ruling. Over the last year, however, major corporate players have dropped language like “anti-racist” from their regulatory filings and altered policies that tied compensation to DEI metrics.

 

Meanwhile, anti-DEI business leaders like Elon Musk have embraced a new acronym—MEI, which stands for merit, excellence, and intelligence—in an effort to undermine DEI principles. Given its influence in the HR industry—and the fact that DEI roles are often situated within the HR department—SHRM’s decision could have ripple effects across the business world.