15847: Salad Days For Juneteenth…?

 

Hey, this menu item from the Children’s Museum of Indianapolis would have gone perfectly with ice cream from Walmart.

15810: Ulta Beauty Is Ultra Ugly—In Spades.

 

The New York Post reported on Ulta Beauty’s ugliness—that is, its outrageous example of cultural cluelessness—which ignited much-deserved online backlash. The cosmetics beauty retailer sent out the email referenced above, allegedly unintentionally making light of Kate Spade’s suicide by hanging in 2018. To make matters even more disgusting, May is Mental Health Awareness Month. Beautiful.

 

Fans rip Ulta Beauty for shocking email about Kate Spade’s suicide

 

By Samantha Ibrahim

 

Ulta Beauty is attempting to makeup with fans after ugly backlash over its latest “tone-deaf” email promotion.

 

The cosmetics mega company sent out an email for a Kate Spade perfume on Sunday that unintentionally alluded to the designer’s suicide. Ulta’s message to customers read “Come hang with Kate Spade” alongside a sale for its beauty products.

 

Spade died by suicide when she hanged herself in 2018. She was 55.

 

The beauty behemoth apologized in a statement to The Post on Monday.

 

“Ulta Beauty recently sent an email featuring Kate Spade New York fragrance with an insensitive subject line and for this, we sincerely apologize,” the rep said. “Mental health is a very serious, important issue in this country, and not something we would ever take lightly. We apologize to the Spade family, our Kate Spade New York brand partners and to our guests. Thank you for understanding as we strive to do better.”

 

Fans were appalled by the reference and expressed outrage on social media.

 

“How disgusting to use for clickbait,” wrote one, believing the message was written intentionally.

 

“I cannot believe I got this email today,” one person wrote on Twitter. “Is this some kind of sick joke? How insensitive and absolutely tone-deaf. Apparently nobody in marketing at Ulta remembers how Kate Spade died. Disgusting.”

 

Another chimed in, “Just got this email … this is wrong of Ulta Beauty … Kate Spade committed suicide by hanging herself.”

 

“Ulta Beauty corporate probably having a MELTDOWN realizing somebody sent out a promo email with the subject line Come hang with Kate Spade … somebody’s losing their job,” a user added.

 

“Ulta Beauty f—ked up with their Kate Spade email. Not only did I get a metric f—k ton of emails all night, but the headline was BULLS—T. Ulta gives no care to the mental health community, Kate Spade or her family. Gross,” a fan wrote.

 

As May marks Mental Health Awareness month, another noted, “Kate Spade was amazing and an icon. Your lack of attention to detail is sad at best, negligent and hurtful at worst. Do better. #MentalHealthAwareness.”

 

Criticizing the critics currently disseminating the promo, one insisted, “Sharing that awful ulta beauty x kate spade email is honestly worse than ulta sending it in my opinion because someone in the comments who would’ve never seen it otherwise literally said they were triggered by it. that person should’ve just emailed ulta.”

 

At the time of the fashion icon’s death, her family sent out a statement saying: “To most of the world, she was Kate Spade, the beautiful embodiment of her brand and a glamorous cultural icon.”

 

Kate Spade founded the brand with husband Andy Spade in the early 90s, putting up their own money to launch their line of preppy, colorful handbags, which they hustled together at trade shows for years until the likes of Barneys and Saks would carry them — and without the help of celebrity endorsements as so many brands rely on these days.

 

The duo sold their stake in Kate Spade to Neiman Marcus in 2006 — by then already considered iconic, and expanded beyond bags to include other accessories, clothing and home goods.

 

Andy released his own statement at the time of Kate’s death, explaining that “there were personal demons she was battling.”

 

“Kate suffered from depression and anxiety for many years. She was actively seeking help and working closely with her doctors to treat her disease, one that takes far too many lives,” he wrote in 2018.

15696: Unilever And Dove Cry, “Black Hair Matters!”

 

Advertising Age spotlighted the latest patronizing propaganda from Dove—and the report’s opening paragraph underscored the ignorance and hypocrisy:

 

“A new study from Unilever’s Dove has uncovered startling findings with respect to Black girls—from as early as the age of five, they experience hair-based discrimination at schools. That statistic comes to life in a heart-tugging new spot from Ogilvy and Swift.”

 

Okay, here’s a breakdown of the ignorance and hypocrisy.

 

First, why conduct a study to uncover common knowledge? Answer: Because Unilever and Dove are culturally clueless.

 

Second, why label the findings as “startling”? Answer: Because Unilever, Dove and Advertising Age are culturally clueless.

 

Third, why assign such a project to White advertising agency Ogilvy? Answer: Because Unilever and Dove are hypocritical piles of shit.

 

Fourth, why did White advertising agency Ogilvy partner with Swift? Answer: Because Unilever, Dove and Ogilvy (having abandoned OgilvyCulture long ago) are culturally clueless and hypocritical piles of shit.

 

Fifth, why does Swift boast about being female-founded and female-run with women comprising 80% of leadership, staffed by BIPOC-identifying workers comprising 40% of the team and certified by The 3% Movement? Answer: Because the Portland-based shop can leverage such data points to land gigs with Unilever, Dove and Ogilvy—plus, get promotional PR from Ad Age.

 

Sixth, this blog has been unimpressed by Dove since it launched the Real Beauty campaign—for reasons detailed in this 2005 post. If anyone needs further evidence that Dove’s campaign is thoroughly unoriginal, check this out. No, really, check this out now.

 

Finally, there’s no doubt that Unilever, Dove, Ogilvy and Swift will take full advantage of pumping the pathetic poop during Black History Month.

 

Dove Study Finds That Girls As Young As Five Experience Race-Based Hair Discrimination

 

Brand’s latest Crown Coalition effort includes emotional ad from Ogilvy and Swift following one girl’s disheartening hair journey

 

By Ann-Christine Diaz

 

A new study from Unilever’s Dove has uncovered startling findings with respect to Black girls—from as early as the age of five, they experience hair-based discrimination at schools. That statistic comes to life in a heart-tugging new spot from Ogilvy and Swift.

 

The ad follows one young woman’s hair journey through the years, opening on a scene of her as a girl. Her father lovingly spends time styling her hair in braids, only to see her turned away at school because her hairstyle doesn’t fit into the “strict hair policy.” In high school, her teacher cautions her against wearing braids during graduation, and as a young adult, she bolts out of a job interview when she sees that her bantu knots fall into the “banned” hairstyles at the company.

 

It ends on an uplifting note, however, with the young girl’s voiceover saying, “My dad always told me I should fight for my hair. So I am.”

 

The spot is the latest in Dove’s efforts supporting The Crown Coalition, the organization it established in 2019 alongside National Urban League, Color of Change and the Center of Western Law and Poverty in an effort to end race-based hair discrimination.

 

The new research, “Dove 2021 Crown Research Study for Girls,” found that 53% of Black mothers said their daughters experienced hair discrimination. Some of those experiences began as early as the age of five. The study also found that approximately 86% of Black teens who endured hair discrimination did so by the age of 12, while 100% of Black elementary school girls in majority-white schools who said they experienced hair bias said they did so by the age of 10.

 

Dove had co-founded The Crown Coalition following its previous research that uncovered how Black women are 1.5 times more likely to be sent home from work because of their hairstyles. It also found that Black women were 80% more likely to change their natural hair to “fit” into their workplace.

 

Since its founding, The Crown Coalition has been fighting to pass The Crown Act, local and federal legislation demanding protection against such discrimination at work and in schools. Currently, only 14 states (CA, CT, CO, DE, IL, MD, NE, NM, OR, NY, NJ, NV, VA, WA) and 34 municipalities have laws against race-based hair discrimination.

 

As part of its inclusive hair efforts, Dove also recently debuted its new “Hair Love” line of products. It was inspired by the Oscar-winning and Dove-backed short created by filmmaker Matthew Cherry, a Crown Act advocate.

 

“This new body of research illuminates the pervasive nature and deep impact hair discrimination has on Black girls highlighting the horrific multi-generational impact of narrow beauty standards in America,” said Esi Eggleston Bracey, EVP and chief operating officer Unilever North America, in a statement. “These biases continue to perpetuate unfair scrutiny and discrimination against Black women and girls for wearing hairstyles inherent to our culture. This is unacceptable and why it is imperative that everyone join the movement to make hair discrimination illegal nationwide through the passage of The Crown Act.”

 

Consumers can sign a petition and see more information on The Crown Act at Dove.com/Crown.

15691: C’MON WHITE MAN! Episode 58—Offensive Karma Sacks Aaron Rodgers.

 

(MultiCultClassics credits ESPN’s C’MON MAN! for sparking this semi-regular blog series.)

 

It’s too early to pick a winner for Super Bowl LVI, but it was a safe bet to call which team would not be hoisting the Vince Lombardi Trophy: The Green Bay Packers.

 

The prediction made last November was based on the theory of Offensive Karma, whereby a team’s display of offensiveness in the form of words or actions rooted in bigotry, discrimination and ignorance leads to the team’s ultimate demise in a championship tourney.

 

The Las Vegas Raiders couldn’t evade Offensive Karma, even after separating from racist, sexist and homophobic Jon Gruder—a triple threat in the bigoted arena.

 

In the latest NFL playoff picture, Packers Quarterback Aaron Rodgers deserved being named MVP—Most Vocal Prejudice.

 

The offensive penalties began when Rodgers defended blatantly lying about his COVID-19 vaccination status by quoting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

Oh, but it got worse. In recent days, Rodgers responded to President Joe Biden telling a Packers fan that he wished Rodgers would get vaccinated. The MVP QB snapped, “When the President of the United States says, ‘This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,’ it’s because him and his constituents—which I don’t know how there are any if you watch any of his attempts at public speaking—but I guess he got 81 million votes.” Rodgers also tossed a bad pass by calling the Biden administration “a fake White House.”

 

To be clear, making fun of Biden’s “attempts at public speaking” when it’s common knowledge that the Commander-In-Chief has struggled with stuttering qualifies as bullying and biased bullshit.

 

Pushing the big lie of “a fake White House” underscores Rodgers’ politically incorrect stupidity.

 

The Green Bay Packers’ loss to the San Francisco 49ers—while playing at home in a snowstorm against a West Coast team—confirms the power of Offensive Karma. As well as the absolute ignorance of Aaron Rodgers.

C’MON WHITE MAN!

 

P.S., Why is this guy still playing on the State Farm roster?

15181: Taking A Stand For Stan.

Advertising Age published a perspective from Diane Fannon, who presented a biased defense for Stan Richards. Biased in that Fannon worked as a principal executive alongside Richards at his White advertising agency for 19 years before retiring in 2019, continuing to serve as a part-time consultant.

 

The gist of Fannon’s puffery is summarized in the title: Judge Stan Richards On His Deeds, Not A Few Words.

 

Fannon fills most of the editorial by gushing over Richards’ alleged dedication to divertsity, citing how White women have flourished at the shop. Plus, Fannon noted that another former employee posted on the old man’s support for the LGBTQ+ community. Whoop-dee-damn-doo.

 

It’s important to consider who has “judged” Richards. First, clients formerly serviced by The Richards Group passed judgment by distancing themselves and pulling their business. Second, Richards rendered a verdict by “firing” himself, acknowledging that if he were not owning an independent enterprise, someone else would have executed the termination. Sorry, but have any other entities stepped forward as judges?

 

Fannon evades—or is oblivious to—the key issues in the scenario. Per Fannon’s request, perhaps there is some benefit to avoiding a total condemnation of Richards—and pondering the principles versus the personalities.

 

For starters, what did Richards mean with his words? Hey, labeling Motel 6 guests as White supremacists is pretty clear—so, no need to elaborate on that statement. But it would be helpful if Richards could explain why he critiqued a campaign concept as “too Black”—and why he believed Blackness would be rejected by Whites. Chances are, Richards can’t even begin to conceive a rationale. And that’s part of the problem.

 

For the culturally clueless—a group that includes Richards and Fannon—there is almost always a lack of common sense and common courtesy. Fannon insists Richards’ words were a slip of the tongue and not indicative of the man’s true character. Okay, but forgive the offended for perceiving a historical pattern. That is, racist remarks do not commonly expel from anti-racist people. Granted, Richards probably ain’t a card-carrying Klansman. But is anyone categorizing Richards as unconsciously biased? Nope. He likely falls somewhere between a Grand Wizard and a politically incorrect Grandpa.

 

So, what’s the big deal? Well, for an iconic leader in an industry long struggling with diversity—during these Black Lives Matter times—to display ignorance with racist sentiments is beyond inexcusable. It’s not about who Richards is, but rather, what he represents. The message is painfully simple: cultural cluelessness is persistent and prevalent at the upper echelons of adland.

 

In defending Richards, Fannon wrote the following:

 

“But before he could truly address the pain he inflicted, one person decided to inflict pain back by going public with his or her perspective on what Stan said. And in that one incredibly selfish moment, he or she inflicted pain on Stan and all 600 people who work there, their families, the network of services that rely on The Richards Group, and clients who entrusted their brands to The Richards Group for decades.”

 

For Fannon to attack the employee who exposed Richards’ original utterances and subsequent responses is nothing short of reprehensible—and perhaps passively racist. It’s definitely unprofessional. The consultant could use some consultation with a competent HR director, provided The Richards Group employs one.

 

Expect the shop to name a new Chief Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Officer soon. Of course they will.

 

Opinion: Judge Stan Richards On His Deeds, Not A Few Words

 

Former Richards Group principal says employees will restore trust in agency’s name

 

By Diane Fannon

 

Do you judge a person by a few words or by a lifetime of deeds? Do you judge Stan Richards on what he said in an internal meeting, or do you judge Stan on a lifetime of what he’s done? What would you rather be judged by? Something you said, using completely offensive and poorly chosen words? Or things you’ve done that speak more clearly about who you are?

 

I retired from The Richards Group as a principal almost two years ago, after working side by side with Stan for 19 years. And lest you—like so many others who have weighed in or taken action without the proper background—think I’m speaking about things I read about or were passed along to me, I was also on the Zoom call in a consultative role during that internal creative review.

 

So I know what he said, and I know who he is. They are two completely different things.

 

I won’t spend any time defending what he said, because what he said is indefensible, but I will spend time defending who he is. And maybe providing those who are taking the time to consider what to do next with more input on which to base their actions.

 

In my two decades with Stan, I never saw him discriminate based on gender, sexual orientation, or race. The only individuals I saw him discriminate against were those who lacked talent and couldn’t make the work better. Even then, out of loyalty, he hung on to people longer than he should have. Because that’s who he is.

 

When it comes to gender, which I can speak to personally, all you have to do is take a look around The Richards Group. More than half the talented professionals who work at The Richards Group are women. A woman leads the media operation. A woman leads the business analytics practice. A woman leads the public relations group. A woman leads the experiential marketing team. A woman leads business development. If you’re the best at what you do, that’s all the discrimination Stan needs.

 

For sexual orientation, no one could have said it better than former employee Kristina Jonathan in a post she wrote on LinkedIn. So I won’t try. She’s articulate, objective, and circumspect.

 

While Stan isn’t Black, and can’t begin to walk in those shoes as he would freely admit, he has long recognized the need to address diversity and inclusiveness. The culture of “do the right thing” is fundamental to the agency he built and cultivated. Members of the digital team within the agency created a website called Justice Kitchen, highlighting Black-owned restaurants and bars—a testament to the agency’s commitment to furthering a progressive social agenda and putting words into action.

 

In February this year, the agency formed ally groups like She@TRG, LGBTQ+@TRG, and BLK@TRG—creating communities that share common experiences to further educate the entire agency.

 

He may be 87 years old, but Stan has never stopped learning. Never stopped thinking about the future. Never stopped considering what the next generation has to offer. Never stopped listening.

 

And he would have been all ears after that internal meeting. But before he could truly address the pain he inflicted, one person decided to inflict pain back by going public with his or her perspective on what Stan said. And in that one incredibly selfish moment, he or she inflicted pain on Stan and all 600 people who work there, their families, the network of services that rely on The Richards Group, and clients who entrusted their brands to The Richards Group for decades.

 

What Stan said wasn’t right. But it isn’t who Stan is. He is a brilliant, gracious, thoughtful egalitarian to a fault. Isn’t that how you’d rather be judged?

 

Despite all this, what gives me hope for the future is that The Richards Group isn’t just Stan Richards. It’s all the talented and passionate people who still work there. It’s their strategic brilliance and creativity that have served their clients well over the years and continue to serve them well—working through all this with focus and tenacity, operating by the values deeply instilled in the agency by Stan. Their deeds will continue, and restore trust in The Richards Group’s name. Because that’s who they are.

 

Diane Fannon, a former principal of The Richards Group, retired in 2019 and remains in an occasional consultative role.

15098: COVIDiots And Twits On Parade In Adland.

Advertising Age reported on Publicis Groupe Global Head of Futures and Insights Tom Goodwin, who tweeted insights on COVID-19 that might impact his future with the White holding company. Goodwin’s gripes included, “I find the total obsession with Covid deaths over all other deaths entirely gruesome.” The remarks inspired gruesome outrage from pseudo thought leaders like Kat Gordon and Wieden + Kennedy Co-President Colleen DeCourcy, who condemned Goodwin as a ‘splainer and declared, “There are not enough days in life to care about Tom Goodwin.” Of course, DeCourcy found enough time to deliver follow-up quotes to an Ad Age scribe. At his website, Goodwin explains, “It’s my job to understand how the world is and isn't changing and advise our Clients and our Worldwide Agency network what it means and how to best change for the future.” Okey-doke. Based on the story, Goodwin appears to be a bona fide douchebag. Gordon and DeCourcy, on the other hand, established their world-class stupidity long ago. Somebody should put all of these fools on lockdown already.

 

Publicis Groupe Exec Sparks Twitter Backlash After Criticizing ‘The Total Obsession With Covid Deaths”

 

By Lindsay Rittenhouse

 

Tom Goodwin, the head of futures and insight for Publicis Groupe, ignited a heated Twitter debate on Sunday involving some well-known industry executives after he criticized “the total obsession with Covid deaths over all other deaths” as “entirely gruesome.”

 

Goodwin wrote in the tweet, “I find the total obsession with Covid deaths over all other deaths entirely gruesome. 7500 Americans die every day but only the ones with this precise new Virus matter. (& excess mortality is now near zero).”

 

He continued in a thread, “Still finding it totally baffling that someone who dies from Covid is more preventable & thus more tragic than someone who dies of delayed cancer diagnosis or delayed surgery because of the lockdown, which is just how life is. & 2019 Influenza B deaths are less tragic why?”

 

A Publicis Groupe spokesperson said only, “His views are not reflective of the company’s.”

 

His tweets sparked a Twitter firestorm, though. R/GA U.S. Chief Strategy Officer Tom Morton was quick to respond to Goodwin, stating in a tweet: “Because it’s a new disease with no vaccine and no cure and 150,000 Americans are dead. Please no more clickbait contrarianism. You’re better than this.”

 

According to the latest figures from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, there have been 154,471 deaths in the U.S. related to coronavirus.

 

Goodwin then went off on Morton, who subsequently retweeted the Publicis exec’s response with the statement: “I guess this is the end of me and Tom Goodwin’s professional correspondence.” Several industry executives then jumped into the debate and to Morton’s defense, including Wieden + Kennedy Chief Creative Officer and Co-President Colleen DeCourcy, The 3% Movement Founder Kat Gordon and Stink Studios CEO-Partner Mark Pytlik.

 

Morton did not respond to a request for comment. Goodwin, though, told Ad Age that Morton blocked him on Twitter following the argument and that he would “welcome the chance to talk to him about any aspects of what he’s put, either in public or private.”

 

Goodwin had responded to Morton with a series of tweets including: “Apologies for caring about the thousands dying from suicide, delayed cancer treatment, delayed ‘elective’ surgery etc, its not fucking contrarianism, is basic morality. Get off your lofty perch & give a shit about the vulnerable— Your sourdough baking homeschooling works well for YOU.”

 

“Seriously Tom, your double income, working from home, moral high ground judgment makes me fucking sick,” Goodwin continued in his Twitter thread response which was retweeted by Morton. “Do you think I’m trying to jerk off to the S&P500 or do you think maybe I have a little more empathy &can see life in tatters in all directions, well beyond the Hudson valley.”

 

Goodwin concluded in his tweets against Morton, “By all means think I’m wrong, argue with the data, but never ever doubt my intentions and NEVER think this is simple.”

 

“I’m a big believer in conversations about vital topics and to learn from the debate,” Goodwin told Ad Age. “Changing your own opinions from conversation is better than maintaining it, it means you’ve learned something.”

 

“Rest assured I mean nothing personal. I, like many of us, am just painfully aware a lot of people are really really suffering right now,” Goodwin continued in an email. “We use lines like ‘we’re all in this together’, and I’m not totally sure we’re doing our gifts of empathy justice. The homeless around Penn Station grow ever more gaunt, drug addiction hotlines get overwhelmed, the elderly are feeling more isolated by the day, kids below the digital divides see their chance of changing generational wealth gaps evaporate. The value we bring to our clients comes from understanding the world and most from REALLY understanding people. It’s our job to see why people would vote for Trump when it seems illogical, to see why people don’t want to wear masks, to drink with Border agents, to do trends decks from Dollar General and from Hudson Yards.”

 

‘Not leadership’

 

DeCourcy, one of the execs who came to Morton’s defense, argued though that the way in which Goodwin responded to Morton was “not leadership.” 

 

“Everyone is entitled to their opinion and debate can be a productive tool,” she told Ad Age. “Tom Goodwin’s ego takes those things to ugly places.”

 

DeCourcy noted that she does not personally know Goodwin but called Morton “a kind and thoughtful member of the advertising community.”

 

Goodwin has never seemed to shy away from voicing his opinion publicly and often his tweets can be seen as incendiary. On July 30, for example, he commented on companies’ ineffective ability to “sell” via Zoom: “I don’t really care why you started the company, who you are, who backed you, just show me the thing. It’s not rocket science.”

 

Pytlik, in defense of Morton, had wrote in a tweet: “Ah yes, all that grandstanding and extreme whataboutery was merely the sign of *checks notes* a more empathetic man.”

 

DeCourcy wrote, “There are not enough days in life to care about Tom Goodwin.” Gordon wrote, of Goodwin, that she “dropped him recently when he parentsplained me and he has no kids,” to which DeCourcy responded: “He’s a ‘splainer.”

 

Seemingly in response to the debate he sparked, Goodwin tweeted out a series of posts on Monday stating, for example, “Not sure what the point of a voice is if you are not going to use it for what you believe to be right,” and affirming his views are his own and “not representative of a Publicis POV.” Goodwin was named head of futures and insight for Publicis Groupe in January after having served four years as executive VP and head of innovation for the holding company-owned Zenith Media.

15058: French Firm Moves To The Front Of The Culturally Clueless Bus.

Adweek reported a White advertising agency in France is rethinking its name—Rosapark—after getting trashed on Twitter. The founders claim they labeled the agency in 2012, completely oblivious to the similarity to civil rights icon Rosa Parks, which ultimately underscores their collective cultural cluelessness. To add comedic value, the company boasts having an “urban” personality. And while the place insists the name is spelled as one word, the website graphics display it as two words. Regardless, Rosaparks is now debating renaming itself. Hey, why not? If Land O’ Lakes dumped the Indian Maiden, PepsiCo is retiring Aunt Jemima and companies are reevaluating Rastus, Uncle Ben and Mrs. Butterworth, surely the French firm can do the right thing. Free and friendly advice: steer clear of Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman. Ditto Josephine Baker, despite her ties to France. Sorry, guys, the most appropriate monickers—Cracker Barrel and Cracker Jack—are already copyrighted.

 

French Agency Rosapark: ‘We Will Be Rethinking the Name of Our Agency’

 

Exclusive: Founders "fully understand" why the name is being scrutinized

 

By Minda Smiley

 

The founders of Havas-owned Rosapark are “rethinking” the agency’s name after facing criticism on Twitter earlier this week.

 

On Tuesday, Nathan Young, president of 600 & Rising and group strategy director at Periscope, tweeted an image of Rosapark’s founders—all of whom are white men—with the following comment: “Advertising’s race problem in one image.”

 

Young’s tweet prompted a response from someone named Louis Duroulle, who—according to LinkedIn—is an account director at Havas Paris. While Duroulle’s tweets have since been deleted, he essentially accused of Young of “trash talking” Rosapark:

Later that day, Young tweeted that he’d “had a conversation with U.S. leadership” at Havas. 

 

“I won’t disclose details, but I did speak to several issues of importance to our members and received assurance that U.S. diversity data would be forthcoming,” he tweeted. The members he’s referring to are those of 600 & Rising, a nonprofit Young founded alongside Bennett D. Bennett earlier this month that’s dedicated to advocating for Black people in the advertising industry.

 

In a statement sent to Adweek, the founders of Rosapark said they “fully understand” why the name is receiving criticism.

 

“We are aware of the various comments on social media related to the name Rosapark, and we would like to assure you we are taking them very seriously,” they wrote. “We are sincerely sorry if the name of our agency, which we chose 8 years ago, has caused any offense. In the current climate and in light of recent world events, we fully understand why.”

 

They also said they are “particularly sensitive to the issue of diversity in our industry.” According to the founders, Fichteberg—who earlier this year was named president of the Association of Communication Consulting Agencies’ advertising delegation—“has put diversity at the heart of his program, which aims to profoundly transform our industry in this area.” 

 

“In light of the above, we will be rethinking the name of our agency,” the statement concluded. “Please rest assured that we are fully committed to this subject.”

 

Since its inception in 2012, the founders of Rosapark—which was named Adweek’s International Agency of the Year in 2018—have maintained that the agency was not named after Rosa Parks, the civil rights activist who famously refused to give up her seat to a white person on a bus in Montgomery, Ala.

 

In 2015, French publication L’ADN interviewed Chiquiar and Fichteberg. In the article, they discuss how they landed on Rosapark, explaining they were inspired by parks, skateboarding culture and the desire to add a touch of “feminine softness,” hence “Rosa.” A translated version of their comments is below:

 

One of Rosapark’s prerogatives is to understand the times. What it brings, what technologies can be useful for brands, decipher trends … “We try to understand people better.” A philosophy that is embodied by the agency as a whole. “The agency’s name, Rosapark, translates what we are. Urban, city children … The city has a particular rhythm: How to create a parenthesis to the frenzy?” The idea of the park is becoming a “breathing lung.” The “K” translates the skateboarding culture of the founders. And to bring a touch of more feminine softness, Rosa goes to the park. For them, there was no question of having an acronym for their agency’s name. “It prevails over egos, personalities, willingness to put themselves forward. Here, we speak with one voice around Rosapark,” Chiquiar said.

 

The following year, former Rosapark creative director Mark Forgan said the agency wasn’t deliberately named after Parks in an interview with the Epica Awards.

 

“The guys wanted to name it after an urban location, and they liked the idea of ‘park.’ Then they felt that ‘rose park’ or ‘rosa park’ made it feel a little less masculine since they were three guys,” Forgan said. “The link to Rosa Parks was almost incidental.”