Should marketing agencies take a stand?

WPP’s CEO, Martin Sorrell last week publicly denounced the creation of this advertisement produced by the Argentinian arm of his Y&R business.

How do you feel about it?

For me, sentiment and issues of taste aside, what is amazing is his vocal criticism of his own business. If I was working for the WPP group anywhere in the world, I’d now be very concerned. And very confused

Martin Sorrell is British and is expressing an opinion based mostly on his nationality. Yet  he runs a global business in almost every corner of the world staffed by many nationalities, some of whom will be bemused by his reaction.

“Does this mean we have to have neo-colonial, british empire-orientated  values when producing creative work for our local markets?”, I can imagine them wondering.

Now, WPP has a large exposure to the UK market with many high-spending clients and people based here so on the one hand one can understand his rush to criticise. But what about all those people outside of the UK who probably can’t see what the fuss is about? In an instant, WPP finds itself caught between a rock and a hard place.

The second related issue is whether there is any room for morality in marketing services businesses. They have never been ones to turn away a dollar in the past, however unpalatable the client or their agenda. The lobbying industry, in which Sorrell has many interests (see below), has never hitherto been a shrinking wall flower when it comes to taking money from clients.

WPP group public affairs interests include:

1.  Burson-Marsteller, and its subsidiaries: Prime Policy Group, Direct Impact, Penn Schoen Berland;
2. Hill & Knowlton, and its affiliate, Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates;
3. Ogilvy Government Relations;
4. Quinn Gillespie & Associates;
5. Dewey Square Group

On the WPP webpage about ‘marketing ethics”, the only visible expression of morality I could see was as follows:

We will not undertake work which is intended or designed to mislead. We do not knowingly represent ‘front groups’ (organisations which purport to be independent NGOs but are controlled by another organisation for the purpose of misleading) and seek to ensure that we are aware of who the underlying client is before taking on work. (extract from WPP’s website)

So “misleading” is bad but anything else is fair game? My experience of working in agencies was that we were trading our ability to influence for clients cash. We were not there to judge a client’s agenda but to help them get their message across. Finito. So the idea that suddenly agency people should  consider the morality of what they do or respect the sensibilities of another nation they have been at war with is risible if it alters their ability to perform. Imagine Martin Sorrell banning all ads depicting scenes from the second world war!

So where do WPP’s people stand now that their boss has the potential to publicly criticise their work? Does WPP have a stated policy that all staff have to subscribe to that states they cannot  insult other countries? Do they have a decision-making framework that enables them to turn clients away with morally repugnant views or for whom offensive communications will work?

Dove and Lynx have long been Unilever stable mates but the latter has turned into a massive youth brand on the back of its relentless sexism. The former meanwhile has profited from its campaign for ‘normal’ women trying to escape the objectification of women by brands like Lynx. Is WPP going to stop using sex to sell if it offends another part of society?

I somehow doubt their people have any clear guidelines that have been asserted from on high other than “make brands famous and make me money”. Which means the tens of thousands of people who work there suddenly have no real idea where they stand or what their organisation stands for but know their leader stands for something that they can only second guess. Poor people – what a lousy place to work.

I’m not suggesting that the wheels are going to come off his impressive business empire but I also know values are a critical contributor to organisational cohesion.  And when a leader expresses values-based opinions that are out of kilter with his people and their values and beliefs, challenging their entire raison d’etre for working there in the first place, then that can only lead to trouble.

Follow