16898: AI & A-Holes.

 

More About Advertising noticed B&T—Australia’s leading publisher for advertising, media, marketing, and PR news—ran a story on Omnicom planning to acquire IPG.

 

The content featured an Adobe Firefly-rendered portrait of WPP CEO Mark Read, Publicis Groupe CEO Arthur Sadoun, and S4 Capital Overlord Sir Martin Sorrell (depicted above).

 

Much has been published on how AI fails diverse audiences; however, the B&T image demonstrates White men benefit from the technology—especially based on the portrayal of Sir Peanut.

 

George Parker commented, “Is that how the ‘Poisoned Dwarf’ AI’s himself before hitting [Shepherd Market]?”

16822: Chatting About Bias In AI.

 

Adweek published a perspective on addressing bias in AI. Written by an experiential creative and copywriter at Monk, the exposition presented challenges that emerged during the invention of AI-powered robot Sir Martian, named after Sir Martin Sorrell. Um, it sounds like AI bias inspired by a biased A-hole.

 

 

4 Ways to Mitigate Bias in AI and Close the Diversity Deficit

 

Key lessons from a 2024 Cannes activation

 

By Larissa Pontez

 

Feed a prompt to an AI image generator and you’re bound to encounter an insidious pattern: Do the people look … too stunning? Perhaps even wanton? 

 

Gender, race, body type, nationality, religion—you’re almost guaranteed to get prejudiced and outdated stereotypes when using these descriptors in prompts. And “wanton” is a deliberate adjective; it’s mostly used pejoratively toward women, and AI tends to oversexualize female images. These glaring imbalances showcase a recurring problem with AI outputs: the replication of societal biases, which can be harmful to actual people and communities. 

 

I wrestled with this firsthand while helping develop Sir Martian, one of our key AI demos featured at Cannes earlier this year. Sir Martian, playfully named after Sir Martin Sorrell, is an AI-powered robot in the form of an alien caricaturist. Throughout the festival, he invited attendees to sit down for a quick chat and a sketched portrait, based on their appearance and tastes. 

 

I’m proud that the demo was a success, because as you can imagine, this interaction was more than a simple conversation. And it taught me a lot about the privileges and responsibilities of shaping a new technology. Here’s what I learned. 

 

Words matter—your data sets the tone 

 

Most AI tools available for the general public are trained on datasets that aren’t accessible or visible to users, so I feel particularly fortunate to work at a company that creates and trains its own models. It really is a “great power, great responsibility” scenario. 

 

The foundation of any generative AI model should be diverse and comprehensive. By expanding the range of base images and training materials, developers can create AI systems that represent a broader spectrum of human experiences. This enriches outputs and helps combat entrenched biases. 

 

With Sir Martian, specificity was essential for aligning user inputs with desired outputs. After some trial and error, we found that we had to train the model combining visual input with very precise text prompts in order to get it to represent people accurately. 

When given a picture of a Black woman and the prompt “woman with braids,” the AI model automatically defaulted to a woman with German-style braids. We had to train and fine-tune it using specific terms like “cornrows” and “box braids” to get it to create accurate drawings. Giving the system a wider variety of terms to connect to visual references was crucial to getting more diverse depictions. 

 

This step was humbling because I encountered my own limitations in the process. For example, we don’t have a large Muslim population where I’m based in Brazil, yet a global audience traveling to Cannes would likely include women in hijabs or chadors. This prompted me to research the nuances between different articles of dress that, to an untrained eye, may have been seen as interchangeable. The experience highlighted the importance of stepping outside of our bubbles to recognize what we don’t know, in order to learn and incorporate diverse cultural elements that better serve global users. 

 

Diversity is (and isn’t) everyone’s responsibility 

 

As the only woman on the team building Sir Martian, the problematic depiction of women raised alarm bells for me early on but didn’t faze my male colleagues until I brought it to their attention. We need more diverse teams who can authentically lead AI in the right direction. But at the same time, the onus shouldn’t be on minorities alone to fix biases that have affected them for generations. 

 

Overcoming these biases demands collective effort. After I discovered flaws in Sir Martian’s AI model, I partnered closely with a developer on the project who was dedicated to addressing these issues. I reached out to a Black co-worker and Muslim women in our global community for their feedback on whether Sir Martian’s drawings were respectfully reflecting their identities. These are just some examples of the cross-disciplinary collaboration that needs to happen in order to make a change; once you flip the switch and understand what needs to be done, the rate of progress is astounding. 

 

The industry has a ways to go, but we’re seeing positive change. Since Sir Martian launched, we’ve instated a global AI policy to help staff become more conscious of common biases that occur in AI systems, such as data bias, algorithmic bias, and confirmation bias. Perhaps more importantly, fostering an inclusive environment encourages a shared responsibility in creating AI systems that accurately and fairly reflect diverse experiences, ultimately benefiting everyone. 

 

Know where to draw the line, and back up your decisions 

 

Our industry celebrates how AI will unlock personalization for everyone, but there are limits. The unfortunate reality is that, when it comes to accurately depicting everyone, we can’t perfectly address every difference on every project. But we can try to be as thorough as possible given the limits of technology, time, and budgets. 

 

When it comes to being more diverse and inclusive, for example, people naturally focus on accounting for a variety of skin tones. That’s great, but it’s often as far as we go. What about different body types and sizes? How might a generated portrait differ when someone is sitting in a wheelchair instead of standing up?

 

We should not only address these questions, but also begin asking them at a project’s inception. Those of us developing consumer-facing generative AI activations must be conscious of where our parameters fall, as well as able to justify the decisions we make. 

 

When working on Sir Martian for the demo in Cannes, we decided to leave children out of the training data, knowing that they were not our target audience. This was a conscious decision rather than a blind spot in our process, as representation and inclusion so often are in AI projects.

 

It’s time to do better 

 

We all know that AI is an amazing tool that has progressed by leaps and bounds over the last few years, but one thing it can’t do is correct our own blind spots. That’s on us to identify and address. 

 

AI serves as a mirror to our society, reflecting both its progress and its persistent challenges. If left unchecked, biases can become even more ingrained through AI. Tackling this issue isn’t a task for minorities alone—it’s something we all need to work on together. This shared commitment can help genuinely turn AI into a force for positive change. 

16738: Comparing Compensation Compounds Systemic Racism In Adland

 

Adweek reported on the multimillion-dollar salaries enjoyed by CEOs at White holding companies, comparing the obscene annual amounts to the average pay of regular workers at White advertising agencies within the global networks.

 

For example, Omnicom Chairman-CEO-Pioneer of Diversity John Wren pocketed $20.2 million in 2023—382 times more than the median wages of the corporation’s 75,900 drones.

 

Management expert Peter Drucker is probably spinning in his grave over the extreme disparities. The Drucker Principle on the topic was summarized by his following quotes: “I have often advised managers that a 20 to 1 salary ratio is the limit beyond which they can not go if they don’t want resentment and falling morale to hit their companies. … I’m not talking about the bitter feelings of the people on the plant floor… It’s the midlevel management that is incredibly disillusioned” by ginormous CEO compensation.

 

To be fair regarding the unfairness, Wren’s 2023 paycheck is low compared to the salary of former WPP Overlord Martin Sorrell, who took home $65 million in 2014—which translated to 780 times more than WPP drones in that period. Hell, Sir Peanut was awarded an exit package from WPP that wildly surpassed the money most Adland peons will see in their lifetimes.

 

Of course, such examinations rarely consider the financial inequality that might be exposed via weighing CEO wallets to the money sacks carried by people of color and Human Heat Shields in the industry. The 1619 Project would undoubtedly liken matters to the racist relationship between plantation owners and slaves.

16647: WPP Significantly A Stupider Company…

 

Campaign reported on the WPP annual general meeting, where outgoing Chairman Roberto Quarto declared the White holding company is “significantly a stronger company” than when Sir Martin Sorrell had left the building.

 

That’s not a surprising summation, as even Sorrell has openly dissed the professional unhealthiness of his own corporate creation after departing. So, to declare WPP is significantly stronger now is like announcing an outhouse doesn’t stink as bad as it did a few years ago.

 

The progressive statement, however, doesn’t apply to the White holding company’s DEIBA+ status. That is, while Sorrell was at the helm, the place boasted being “perhaps the most diverse example of diversity of any single organisation.”

 

Yet in 2021, WPP CEO Mark Read admitted a need for “greater representation of Black, Asian and other under-represented communities within WPP—especially at the more senior levels.” In short, WPP is significantly a more systemically racist company than when Sorrell bailed out.

 

Then again, WPP is probably equally adept at generating performative PR and outright lies today versus in times past.

 

WPP is ‘significantly stronger company’ than when Sorrell left, chairman says

 

By Gideon Spanier

 

WPP is “significantly a stronger company” than when Sir Martin Sorrell departed as chief executive in 2018, the chairman, Roberto Quarta, has maintained in a farewell speech.

 

Quarta, who was speaking at his final annual general meeting after nine years as chairman, said he wanted “to reflect” on “the transformation the company has undergone since the change in executive leadership in 2018”, although he did not mention Sorrell by name.

 

Quarta told investors how “the new executive team”, led by chief executive Mark Read, had “brought stability and a fresh vision to WPP, transforming its culture and revitalising its offering to clients” – for example, by winning big global pitches such as Coca-Cola.

 

That contrasted with WPP’s position in 2018 when the company had high levels of debt, revenues had declined for four consecutive quarters, North America was under particular pressure, and its biggest client, Ford, was re-evaluating its relationship, Quarta noted, as he looked back on his tenure as chairman.

 

“We do not underestimate the task ahead. But, however, it is important to acknowledge that today’s WPP is significantly a stronger company, one with a modern, integrated client proposition, leading positions in a growing market and many promising strategic opportunities on the horizon.”

 

He added the board had given its “full backing” to a new strategic positioning – “Innovating to lead” – which Read presented at a capital markets day in January. It is focused on harnessing the benefits of creativity, technology and scale, with a simpler operating model and six main agency brands.

 

However, Quarta made no mention of WPP’s share price, which has fallen by roughly a quarter to around £8.50 since 2018, and led to the company losing its crown as the world’s most valuable holdco to Publicis Groupe.

 

WPP had a stock market capitalisation of about £24bn at its peak in March 2017, before falling to £16bn by the time that Sorrell abruptly left in April 2018. It is now worth about £9bn, partly because of disposals to cut debt and share buybacks that returned money to shareholders and reduced the total number of shares in issue.

 

WPP is now only the fourth largest group by stock market value, behind Publicis, Omnicom and Interpublic, which are worth about £23bn, £15bn and £9.5bn respectively, at current exchange rates, although UK stocks have also fallen out of favour, partly because of Brexit.

 

Shareholders have backed WPP’s leadership as it has sought to turn around the company’s fortunes. WPP has returned about £4bn to shareholders through dividends and buybacks in the last five years and increased total shareholder return, a key metric, by 8% in the period from January 2019 to December 2023, according to Bloomberg data, although TSR has lagged its main rivals.

 

Read was re-elected with 99.87% approval in a shareholder vote at the AGM, which was held on 8 May at Rose Court, WPP’s second London campus building, which is close to the main headquarters, Sea Containers, on the South Bank. Quarta received nearly 95% approval.

 

Quarta and Read faced questions from several private shareholders, who asked about the company’s performance in the last 12 months, when revenues less pass-through costs rose only 0.9% and it lost some major US media accounts.

 

Read reiterated his message from the recent Q1 results that the Pfizer account loss and cuts by tech clients had hit growth, and he said changes, including a new CEO for Group M in North America, should lead to some improvement during the rest of 2024 and tech clients are “a source of great strength”.

 

“I personally call clients when we’re not successful and try to get to the bottom of what happened,” Read said, when asked what the company had learnt from the loss of client assignments. “By the way, I also call clients when we win and try to find out what we did well,” he added, noting “the quality of the people” is often key.

 

In response to another question about talent retention, Read said employee churn has slowed down, with just over 20% of WPP’s staff leaving annually, compared to 30% in 2022 – when the so-called “Great Resignation” was at its zenith in many industries.

 

More senior staff tend to stay longer and churn is higher among more junior staff, according to Read, who said average tenure was five years.

 

Campaign spoke to a number of small shareholders who were broadly supportive of WPP, albeit some expressed frustration, after the meeting.

 

One shareholder, who declined to be named, said: “They’ve had their ups and downs, but they are more focused and pointing in the right direction [now].”

 

A second shareholder, who also spoke in a private capacity, described WPP’s stock as a “plodder” – it’s a case of “take the dividend and keep your fingers crossed” for a better performance, this person said.

 

Quarta was due to step down ahead of the AGM but has extended his tenure, as WPP has not yet appointed a replacement.

16535: BHM 2024—Media.Monks.

Okay, it’s technically not a BHM moment, but Advertising Age published a perspective by the EVP Global Head of Experience at Media.Monks. The content comprising the promotional pap is irrelevant; however, an image from the piece (depicted above) is worth noting.

 

The photograph shows Media.Monks executives—including Sir Martin Sorrell—engaging with the company’s human avatar, which appears to be a Black man. Leave it to Sorrell, whose original White holding company claimed to represent “the most diverse example of diversity of any single organisation,” to bring DEIBA+ to his newish empire via AI. The Old White Guy is a master of artificial inclusivity.

16454: Read All About It.

 

More About Advertising opined on the struggling WPP, remarking that the White holding company has lost talented leaders through mindless mashups, and ultimately wondering if CEO Mark Read might soon be gone.

 

Read has recently sought to pin the WPProblems on his former boss, Sir Martin Sorrell. Yet both White men share the blame.

 

Whether the issues are rooted in reckless acquisitions or moronic mergers, Read and Sorrell—in their efforts to evolve the holding company model—fueled a commoditization of talent. All White advertising agencies are generic service centers, interchangeable and comprised of replaceable drones. Plus, if a client doesn’t like anything in the corporate collection, a completely new shop can be erected.

 

Talented leaders have been lost? No, White executives were deemed redundant—they were modular units to be shuffled, shifted, and shat out of the system.

 

Just as the current CEO proved Sorrell could be swapped for another White man, Read now finds himself unnecessary, unoriginal, and unwanted. Hey, it’s just business in Adland—Frankenstein’s monster is turning on the meh scientist who created it.

 

WPP’s leadership issues go deeper than the holding company

 

By Stephen Foster

 

WPP CEO Mark Read is copping quite a bit of flak in adland, although not, so far, in the City it seems, for WPP’s recent disappointing Q3 results. And his rather lame statement to Campaign seeming to blame it on former boss (and now auld enemy) Sir Martin Sorrell for not doing enough to integrate the hundreds of companies he bought.

 

Read, as digital director on the board, and COO Andrew Scott were there most of the time too so was this all Sorrell’s fault?

 

When any company stumbles, and WPP has now issued two profit warnings this year, questions are asked of the leadership. But the CEO and his allies aren’t the only leaders in a big, diverse holding company.

 

The various brands within the business also have leaders, or should have. One of WPP’s issues is that, as it keeps busily merging agencies (supposedly to make life easier for clients) it loses leaders. They either hang about, grumbling in the wings, or depart.

 

Agency leaders, media as much as creative, have always been noted for their seemingly blind faith in the brand. Whatever misfortunes occur, publicly they emerge bright-eyed and bushy-tailer to vow that things can only get better – indeed are getting better. Above all they’re loyal to their brand.

 

Under the exacting Sorrell regime WPP had some strong leaders – as well as some who were too strong (as at JWT) but that’s another story. Shelly Lazarus at Ogilvy steered Ogilvy through WPP’s high period although her replacements were less obviously distinguished. Grey emerged as the jewel in WPP’s creative crown (not the strongest field maybe) under veteran CEO Jim Meekin and creative supremo Tor Myhren in the US and David Patton, Chris Hirst and creative Nils Leonard in EMEA and the UK.

 

They all left for various reasons (Myrhen to Apple, Leonard to Uncommon) with Patton, fairly newly ensconced as global CEO of Y&R, finding himself merged into VML. Which now, under founder Jon Cook, stands above the lot of course. That’s a lot of talented leaders to lose.

 

Mediacom’s Stephen Alan (he’s now chair of Brainlabs) built the agency into the biggest in the world but now it finds itself merged with Essence into EssenceMediacom, with Essence seemingly on top. Essence’s Christian Juhl is now CEO of all of GroupM. That’s another big call.

 

What’s the answer? Read says all will be revealed at an investor day in January. Does he have that long?

16002: The Changing White Face Of Advertising.

Remember when the face of advertising was represented by White men like Raymond Rubicam, David Ogilvy, Bill Bernbach, Leo Burnett, Jerry Della Femina, Jay Chiat, Lee Clow, Phil Dusenberry, Hal Riney, Keith Reinhard, Jeff Goodby, Rich Silverstein, Dan Wieden, David Kennedy, Pat Fallon, Tom McElligott, Alex Bogusky, et al?

 

Now, it’s Mark Read, John Wren, Arthur Sadoun, Phillippe Krakowsky, Yannick Bolloré, Mark Penn, Martin Sorrell and assorted corporate politicians.

 

Today’s faces pale in comparison.

15649: No Peanuts, Just Nuts.

 

News sources reported that a British court ordered the ruler of Dubai to cough up roughly $730 million to his ex-wife and kids—rendering one of the biggest divorce settlements in UK history. It’s a safe bet that the ever-competitive Sir Martin Sorrell is seething over being beaten in another category—although he’ll contend his divorce settlement is peanuts compared to the Dubai dude.

15542: Sir Martin Sorrell Adds Color To His Monastery.

 

Sir Martin Sorrell diversified S4 Capital by acquiring Cashmere and folding it into the Media.Monks enterprise.

 

Sorrell gushed, “We are delighted to welcome [Cashmere leadership] and their colleagues to Media.Monks. Their ability to translate contemporary culture into compelling content and reach diverse audiences is a rare talent and something we want to integrate at the heart of our content practice. It is particularly relevant, given the changes we see taking place around diversity and purpose, not only in the United States, but beyond.”

 

“…[G]iven the changes we see taking place around diversity and purpose…?” The changes being that clients are demanding inclusivity from their vendors? Amazing how Sorrell managed to seed the announcement with key words including diverse, integrate, relevant, diversity and purpose. Expect Sir Peanut to soon proclaim his growing empire is comprised of drones that “represent perhaps the most diverse example of diversity of any single organisation.”

 

Why, they might have to change the company name to Multicultural.Monks.

15514: NexTech Is NexTrash…

Adweek hyped its own soiree—NexTech Conference—which featured “brand executives and technology leaders,” including Sir Martin Sorrell.

 

This underscores how the industry has devolved over the years, mostly resulting from the scheming of characters like Sorrell. After all, back in the day, people rose to prominence in Adland by accomplishing something—usually involving the production of breakthrough work or innovations. While it could be argued that Sorrell’s “invention” involved mergers and takeovers to erect monolithic—and monotone—corporations, has the man actually created anything original? Has he ever written a clever headline or designed a cool app? Hell, he spends much of his airtime these days dissing the bureaucratic behemoths he built and inspired.

 

Yet here he is, serving as a keynote speaker and pseudo thought leader—allegedly representing the field that he helped destroy.

 

Oh, and the publicity still for the Adweek event (depicted above) shows that the diversity in digital mirrors the advertising industry.

 

Cue the Four Horsemen.

15433: With Cannes Lions, Sir Martin Sorrell Shows His True Colors.

Back in 2017, Sir Martin Sorrell pressured Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity to streamline its festivities as a cost-cutting measure. Yet when Cannes Lions’ diversity deficits were revealed, Sorrell made no demands to streamline the exclusivity and execute Caucasian-cutting measures.

15128: WPP CEO Mark Read Is A Jackass For The Ages.

 

AgencySpy posted on WPP CEO Mark Read scrambling to apologize after making ageist comments. Read apparently boasted that the “average age of someone who works at WPP is less than 30.” When Read offends old White people, he feels compelled to make amends. Yet when he declares Blacks are woefully underrepresented in the self-proclaimed diverse organisation, no apology necessary.

 

BTW, WPP treats its old White people extraordinarily well. Just ask former WPP Overlord Sir Martin Sorrell.

15095: Worthless Condemnations Worth Considering.

This campaign from Portugal seeks to shame men who engage with prostitutes by calling the guys worthless. Hey, Sir Martin Sorrell would counter that he’s worth up to £495million.