16889: Tank & Stank.

Joe Alexander asks:

 

WHO WILL BE OUR “TANK MAN?”

 

Who will have the courage?

 

Who will resist?

 

Who will fight for the truth?

 

Um, Diet Madison Avenue sought to be our “TANK (WO)MAN”—and they got run over.

16782: #OpenToWork As A Political Pundit.

Political endorsement from a reformed feminist…? Hey, depending on the outcome of his lawsuit, the guy might get hit by Kamala Harris’ proposed tax increase for rich people.

16468: The Martin Agency Delivers Performative PR By The Slice.

Advertising Age reported The Martin Agency hired its first Director of Sustainability, whose last name, appropriately enough, is White. The trade publication also reported The Martin Agency was named Papa Johns’ new White advertising agency.

 

Only in Adland can a firm feign interest in sustainability while partnering with a junk food client that pollutes the environment with pizza boxes and other greasy refuse.

 

Plus, the Papa Johns account review reportedly had a targeted focus on DEI—so, it looks like The Martin Agency conned Shaquille Shaq-a-Roni O’Neal into believing that they were diverse too. Probably claimed having ties to the Martin show.

 

What’s next? Are they gonna appoint Joe Alexander as creative director for the account—who’ll reinstate John Schnatter as brand mascot?

 

Damn, the place serves up performative PR like it’s pizza.

 

15919: On Getting Fired By Joe Alexander…?

 

Stumbled upon a peculiar perspective from former Martin Agency CCO Joe Alexander, navel-gazing over the impact and collateral damage associated with firing someone.

 

Is it possible to peruse the piece without pondering Alexander’s dramatic dismissal? After all, not many terminated employees demand what amounts to a $75 million severance package.

 

And what about the former and existing Martin Agency teammates who were directly victimized in the scenario?

 

Alexander shared about an earlier axing and insisted, “To this day, I believe it was the best thing that ever happened to me.”

 

It’s a safe bet that certain Martin Agency alumni feel likewise about Alexander’s 2017 ouster, although they might say, “Hey, #MeToo.”

15108: No Go Joe—Alexander Is Dismissed And Dissed.

  

Advertising Age reported the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the $25 million lawsuit against Diet Madison Avenue, Adweek and its former editor Patrick Coffee that had been filed by Joe Alexander—ex-CCO of The Martin Agency—in September 2019. The suit apparently fizzled over technicalities including jurisdiction issues and failure to serve defendants alleged to be part of the anonymous DMA crew. However, the $50 million lawsuit that Alexander filed against The Martin Agency and IPG is still active. Perhaps Alexander should tap former Mickey D’s CEO Steve Easterbrook for advice—or commiseration.

 

U.S. District Court Dismisses Joe Alexander’s Lawsuit Against Diet Madison Avenue And Adweek

 

By Ann-Christine Diaz

 

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has dismissed former Martin Agency Chief Creative Officer Joe Alexander’s $25 million lawsuit against Diet Madison Avenue, Adweek and its former editor-at-large Patrick Coffee, due to a jurisdiction issue.

 

The industry has paid rapt attention to Alexander’s long-running and sometimes colorful suit, which drew in alleged members of DMA, the shadowy Instagram account that made pointed accusations of sexual misconduct against major industry figures, including Alexander. Adding to the intrigue is the fact that the people behind DMA have never been publicly verified.

 

Alexander’s suit was initially filed in September 2019, nearly two years after he departed his former agency, alleging that Adweek and Coffee conspired to harm his employment at Richmond, Virginia-based Martin. In December, Adweek and Coffee filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On July 17, the court ruled in their favor, citing that it does not have personal jurisdiction over the defendants, because both are based in New York.

 

District Court Judge John A. Gibney Jr.’s opinion stated that “because Alexander cannot show that Adweek and Coffee specifically targeted a Virginia audience when they published and wrote the articles and tweets at issue, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants and will grant the motion to dismiss.” 

 

The Court also ruled against Alexander’s invoking of a “conspiracy theory of jurisdiction,” stating that Alexander did “not plead any facts to suggest that the defendants ever engaged in a conspiracy with anyone. Instead, his allegations indicate that the defendants’ behavior amounts to conduct typical of news organizations and their reporters: news-gathering, fact-checking and publication.”

 

DMA dilemma

 

There were three other one-time defendants mentioned in the opinion; three women that Alexander, in an amended complaint last December, alleged were part of DMA. In a footnote to the opinion on the current decision, the Virginia court said it dismissed the case against Diet Madison Avenue, Jean Batthany, Dani Hurt and Mara Buta on the grounds that Alexander ultimately did not serve the defendants. When the court asked why, Alexander voluntarily dismissed them from the case.

 

“DMA is operated by identifiable partners, associates and/or individual members, who act in concert to destroy the careers of white, male, chief creative officers, including Joe,” the amended complaint filed in December read. “At all times relevant to this action, Batthany, Hurt, and Buta acted as partner/members and agents of DMA in furtherance of DMA’s primary mission to get rid of Joe.”

 

The amended complaint went on to identify Buta as an employee of Droga5 at the time of the stated offense. It did not identify agency affiliations for Batthany and Hurt.

 

Five months later, on May 14, Alexander filed a Notice of Voluntary dismissal of DMA, Batthany, Hurt and Buta.

 

There is a Mara Buta, who currently serves as senior VP-head of agency at travel marketing and media firm Beautiful Destinations, who had been strategy director at Droga5 New York. She tells Ad Age she had never received any sort of notice from Alexander or his attorney and that “I have never had any affiliation with DMA,” she says. Due to its personnel policy, Droga5 could not confirm whether it employed more than one person with the name Mara Buta.

 

Batthany, who currently serves as VP-global creative, Disney Parks, experiences and products and is a vet of agencies including DDB, Merkley and BBDO, declined to comment. Ad Age reached out to a Dani Hurt, an L.A.-based photography rep who had also worked at agencies including 180 LA and Crispin Porter Bogusky, but has yet to hear back.

 

Diet Madison Avenue attorney Lou Dorny of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani was mid-trial when Ad Age contacted him for comment, but he responded over email, “On behalf of my clients, I am pleased to see that the court has dismissed Diet Madison Avenue—that was the right call.”

 

The court made its ruling “without prejudice,” which means Alexander is free to file his suit in another state that would have personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

 

Multiple attempts to reach Alexander and his attorney Stephen Biss for comment were unsuccessful. Adweek’s attorneys also did not respond to requests for comment. Coffee, now a correspondent at Business Insider, hung up the phone when this reporter identified herself.

 

But while one part of Alexander’s suit seems to be over, there’s more to come. Still pending is the action he filed in September of last year, the $50 million defamation suit against The Martin Agency and its holding company Interpublic Group of Cos. in Richmond Circuit Court. That colorful complaint seeks $50.4 million dollars in damages and opens with an image of “The Death of Lucretia,” the circa-1760s painting by Scottish neoclassicist Gavin Hamilton. It opens with the question, “Et tu, Martin?” That case remains active, with the next hearing set for September 30.

15014: The Martin Agency’s Gonna Party Like It’s COVID-1999.

Advertising Age reported on The Martin Agency maneuvering through the COVID-19 pandemic, continuing to service 88 percent of its clients by proactively offering ideas and taking action. Gee, imagine if such dedicated focus could be applied to, say, diversifying the White advertising agency. CEO Kristen Cavallo is on it for sure. “A few years ago I climbed Kilimanjaro,” said Cavallo. “We hit what we called the place of most resistance, where I lost the plot and wanted to quit.” Not sure if Cavallo was sharing on a personal excursion or actually talking about navigating over the precipice posed by Joe Alexander.

The Martin Agency’s Kristen Cavallo On Being Proactive During The Pandemic

IPG agency CEO says the shop didn’t wait for briefs—and that led 88 percent of its clients to continue work

By Lindsay Rittenhouse

On Friday, March 13, the call came down from Interpublic Group of Cos. that all employees across its agencies would begin working from home on the following Monday due to the worsening coronavirus pandemic.

The Martin Agency CEO Kristen Cavallo immediately called the IPG shop’s staff into in an open gallery space at the agency’s Richmond Virginia home office where people could practice social distancing. Agency leaders broke out the flip charts and began going down The Martin Agency’s list of clients alphabetically, hypothesizing ways they could help each one. By end of day, the agency had emailed three ideas on how to manage the crisis to every one of its clients.

“It’s our job to fight for our clients; that’s what we get paid to do,” says Cavallo noting that The Martin Agency couldn’t be “paralyzed in that moment” or wait for briefs to come through the door. “We don’t have the luxury of coming across as invaluable right now. We are fighting for our own survival.”

And the agency hasn’t stopped moving since. “We’ve just been operating on a much faster timeframe,” Cavallo says, equating the agency’s efforts to exercise: it’s hard to get started but once you do, it becomes routine.

“In the initial days of working from home, there was a lot of agency talk about the hardships of working from home,” says Cavallo, citing a plethora of grousing social media posts and reports in industry trade publications like Ad Age. “We felt it wasn’t the right time to talk about difficulties, but to lean into the client.”

This proactive approach allowed the agency to remotely produce work for 88 percent of its clients, the agency says—a feat considering that many brands have decreased marketing efforts or gone dark entirely during this crisis. To date, The Martin Agency has produced 20 ads for 11 clients, with 11 more spots in progress across eight brands. Out of all of its 18 clients, only two have not yet engaged the agency for a campaign during this time.

“In any six-week period, that is a Herculean effort,” Cavallo says. “I can’t tell you how proud and inspired I am of this company. I’ve never seen anything like it.”

And during a time when many hard-hit clients are cutting agency compensation, Cavallo says that not only have “a number of” Martin’s clients held their fees, some have even increased compensation to the agency since the pandemic began.

Even so, The Martin Agency has realigned staffing in certain areas of the business, such as in production, due to the lack of shoots going on right now, and reallocated positions to other areas. But the agency says it has not gone through the type of layoffs that have hit a number of other shops. An agency spokesperson said: “We’ve pulled back in areas like production to heavy up in PR, animation, digital and strategy. We’ve cut some roles, hired others and have some open roles,” according to The Martin Agency.

Leaning into clients

After sending emails out to all of its clients that fateful Friday the 13th, Cavallo says DoorDash, for which The Martin Agency won lead creative duties in August 2019, “was the first one to bite.”

Cavallo says conversations began with DoorDash the following day, and the agency sent 35 creative ideas to the company on the next day, a Sunday. By Tuesday, March 17, the final idea was locked in and the agency had an integrated campaign in market on Friday, March 20—one week after those initial emails landed in clients’ inboxes.

“We briefed Martin on March 14, right after the NBA had closed and Tom Hanks had announced he had COVID,” says Kofi Amoo-Gottfried, VP of marketing at DoorDash. “Six days later we had a completely integrated campaign up on all channels: TV, online, digital, influencers, partnerships. The ability for The Martin Agency to turn that around in six days is extraordinary.”

DoorDash’s campaign highlighted the many restaurants open for delivery and featured local eateries as well as big U.S. chains like Baskin-Robbins, Buffalo Wild Wings, The Cheesecake Factory, Chick-fil-A, Chili’s and Cracker Barrel, among plenty others. The campaign included a 30-second TV spot, “There For You,” and an #OpenForDelivery site aimed at promoting the various delivery options available to consumers during this time. A tweet promoting the campaign even tagged rivals Uber Eats, Postmates, Grubhub and Caviar, “or wherever your go-to happens to be!”

“Our view was, first and foremost, we are trying to help,” Amoo-Gottfried says, explaining the campaign and its decision to promote competitors. “It was not about DoorDash. This was a category and industry response. It was not about our sales; it was about restaurant sales.”

The campaign drove an 84 percent positive engagement rate with consumers.

As The Martin Agency cranked out that campaign for DoorDash, it was simultaneously producing work for its other clients. Cavallo says the agency shipped camera kits to talent to film from home; leaned on existing stock footage; and even used drones in certain cases to produce the spots remotely.

For UPS, The Martin Agency released a spot thanking its delivery drivers who continue to work through the pandemic. “We went from brief to creative in a little more than a week, which is really, really fast,” says Todd Wandtke, VP of digital marketing, advertising and brand management at UPS.

For Oreo, The Martin Agency churned out three pieces of work: a Trolls World Tour augmented reality experience, a #CookieChallenge partnership with TikTok, and its “Stay Playful” campaign, which as Ad Age reported, has become one of YouTube’s most-viewed coronavirus-related ads.

“Agility is more important now than ever. Having a partner who can adapt quickly to changes in consumer sentiment and understand how our brands can respond with authenticity and empathy is key,” says Justin Parnell, a senior director at Oreo Brand and Mondelez International.

For Ritz, The Martin Agency put a branded spin on Instagram’s #KaraokeChallenge that encouraged people to sing together while staying apart, which helped raise funds for Feeding America. The campaign was produced in a week.

“I feel very close to the agency team and I think this moment has reinforced the level of trust and respect we have for them,” says Patty Gonzalez, senior director of marketing at Mondelez International.

A fight for survival

The Martin Agency is, of course, not the only agency firing on all fronts to survive during this time. Shops are having to prove their worth as a rising tide of brands pull back their marketing spend due to the adverse effects the pandemic is having on their businesses. According to an IAB report, more than one third of brands and media buyers have paused their advertising efforts altogether. Coca-Cola and Molson Coors are among major brands to pause or scale back marketing.

A recent Kantar report countered that while many brands consider “going dark to save costs,” it found that a six-month absence from TV would result in a 39 percent reduction in total brand communication awareness, “potentially delaying recovery in a post-pandemic world.”

“The role of creativity has never been more important,” says Devika Bulchandani, McCann North America president. “Creative is the only way to survival. This is where advertising as an industry shines.”

According to McCann, its Worldgroup network has produced 100-plus new spots since the pandemic began. Bulchandani says that didn’t happen by sitting around waiting for briefs. “In a moment like this, if we waited for briefs, we are not a true partner,” she says.

Still, an agency is made up of humans with lives and anxieties of their own to tend to. Cavallo says The Martin Agency has regular meetings to check in with its people, sends them lunches through DoorDash and tries to inspire them with personal, handwritten notes thanking them for their hard work.

“A few years ago I climbed Kilimanjaro,” Cavallo says. “We hit what we called the place of most resistance, where I lost the plot and wanted to quit. When we were in that space, our guide reminded us we chose to be here. That gave us permission to have control over our fate, one step over the other. So we did that. We’d take one step in front of the other. We did this on a frequent basis so we never felt lost or adrift. [As an agency], it hasn’t been easy [but that mantra has] been super inspiring and provided us fuel.”

14801: IPG Reports Financial Gains Despite Integrity Losses.

AgencySpy posted that IPG reported a Q3 net revenue bump of 8.7%, despite financial struggles in the U.S. Maybe the U.S. loot woes are tied to settlements with sexual harassment victims. Then again, the rosy financial news likely has Joe Alexander contemplating increasing his money demands.

14799: Joe Alexander Wants Truth In Advertising—Ups The Ante By $50 Million.

Advertising Age reported Joe Alexander filed a $50 million lawsuit against The Martin Agency and IPG, complementing the $25 million lawsuit targeting Diet Madison Avenue and Adweek. The Martin Agency is probably checking if GEICO offers insurance to cover legal disputes. Alexander presented plenty of comedy, including dramatic prose in his court complaint and statement to Ad Age. Equally hilarious was counter-commentary from Kristen Cavallo that read: “It’s never been about Joe or #metoo for us. Karen [Costello, chief creative officer,] and I are the leaders of ‘what came next.’ Our actions are a reflection of our values, not a reaction to the past. We can have transparency, wage equality, extended parental leave, a true commitment to a diverse workforce, while creating work our clients prosper from, people talk about and our employees are proud of. Our focus is on the future and the agency’s progress.” Fortunately for Cavallo, she isn’t required to prove her puffery. Such bullshit clearly qualifies as a divertisement. Meanwhile, Alexander is seeking a jury trial, likely in order to call the GEICO Gecko and Caveman as character witnesses.

Former Martin Agency Exec Joe Alexander Sues Martin and IPG For $50 Million

Complaint filed today begins with ‘Et tu, Martin?’ and claims the shop secretly leaked information to Diet Madison Avenue

By Ann-Christine Diaz

Former Martin Agency creative chief Joe Alexander made good on his promise to file against Interpublic Group of Cos. today. It’s not exactly your average lawsuit.

The complaint, filed in the Circuit Court of the city of Richmond, Virginia, seeks $50.4 million dollars in damages and opens with an image of “The Death of Lucretia,” the circa-1760s painting by Scottish neoclassicist Gavin Hamilton.

After the opening question, “Et tu, Martin?” It reads, “This is a case about extreme betrayal, deception and disloyalty,” and names his former agency, its CEO Kristen Cavallo, former VP and associate creative director Sissy Estes, attorney Tara Hanley of Dallas law firm Mark and Hanley and holding company IPG as defendants.

Alexander’s suit charges the defendants with “defamation, insulting words, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, gross negligence, tortious interference, common law conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud in the inducement.” The suit seeks a jury trial.

The suit also follows an earlier suit he filed last month against Diet Madison Avenue and trade publication Adweek.

Alexander left The Martin Agency in December 2017 after the shop reportedly conducted an internal investigation into sexual harassment allegations following posts that had appeared on Diet Madison Avenue—though the agency only responded indirectly to Ad Age when asked if it had conducted such an investigation.

The new complaint lists Alexander’s various contributions and accomplishments during his tenure at the agency, including awards show accolades and industry citations. Those include business and creative successes for brands such as Geico, Oreo, Donate Life, JFK Library and more. There are photos showing him with the Martin team accepting Clios and an Emmy. It cites his salary in 2016 as $1,071,856.83.

The suit alleges that Martin “robbed” Alexander “of his entire life’s work, destroyed his name and reputation, and permanently impaired his ability to find employment in the advertising industry.” It charges that the agency did so by secretly leaking to anonymous social media account Diet Madison Avenue the terms of a confidential settlement agreement between Alexander and the agency along with confidential human resources files, and claims that the agency “represented to DMA that Joe had sexually harassed Martin employees.” The suit states that such allegations were “completely false.”

In further details listed in the complaint, Alexander claims that along with its release of the aforementioned confidential settlement details in the fall of 2017, defendant “Estes or another former employee falsely stated to DMA that in ‘Joe Alexander’s case, there was a slush fund created just for him internally at Martin’ to deal with Joe’s ‘crap’ — a ‘slush fund’ that was hidden from [IPG Chairman-CEO] ‘Michael Roth and IPG.’” The suit identifies Estes as an art director on Walmart who was laid off in 2011 and, the suit claims, “publicly bragged about bringing Joe down” by collaborating with DMA and the media.

The suit goes on to claim that “the suggestion that Roth and IPG were unaware” of the confidential settlement is “patently false,” noting that financial statements of both holding company and agency are consolidated and audited, so a settlement check could not have been concealed from what it calls “IPG’s crack team of accountants and auditors.”

It further claims that the agency and DMA exchanged “numerous false and defamatory statements” about Alexander via Instagram messenger and “wrongly accused Joe of sexual harassment and labeled him a predator.”

The complaint also alleges that IPG had ordered the Martin Agency to terminate Alexander after it had learned the agency had “breached fiduciary duties” and that the agency disclosed confidential employee information to DMA—information which, along with “false accusations,” it claims, were published by DMA.

The suit says that IPG’s reported investigation into claims of harassment by Alexander was only done as a “cover-up” of Martin’s breaches with regard to the confidential settlement agreement, purporting that Alexander’s termination by IPG was a means to shift the spotlight away from the company and prevent DMA from looking into a cover-up of harassment by c-suite execs.

The suit identifies defendant Hanley as an attorney for former Martin employee Robin Bidwell, who the suit claims “alleged (falsely) that she had been sexually harrassed.” The complaint says that Alexander denied wrongdoing and the matter was settled without liability in 2013 in a confidential agreement, which it claims was later leaked to the press.

“It’s never been about Joe or #metoo for us. Karen [Costello, chief creative officer,] and I are the leaders of ‘what came next,’” said Martin Agency CEO Kristen Cavallo in a comment provided to Ad Age. “Our actions are a reflection of our values, not a reaction to the past. We can have transparency, wage equality, extended parental leave, a true commitment to a diverse workforce, while creating work our clients prosper from, people talk about and our employees are proud of. Our focus is on the future and the agency’s progress.”

“This claim is without merit, not to mention contrary to Joe Alexander’s signed agreement with our company and written apologies,” IPG said in a statement to Ad Age. “We stand by our actions and will defend our position, and pursue all applicable counterclaims, vigorously.”

When asked for comment about the suit, Alexander released a statement to Ad Age that reads in full:

I believed. I believed in The Martin Agency. I believed in what they stood for. A company that created big, business changing ideas. A place where hard work was rewarded. Where everyone had a voice at the table. I believed in the talent and pushed my teams to achieve like never before. I believed in the culture so much, I personally recruited dozens of creatives and their families from all over the world to join us. I believed in the people. They were more than coworkers. They were close friends. Confidants. Even godparents. I believed them when they said ‘Trust me.’ ‘You’re my partner.’ ‘We have your back.’ I kept believing in The Martin Agency when it all ended in 2017 after 26 years. ‘We will work it out.’ ‘I want you to have everything so you can make an informed decision.’ ‘We’re here for you.’ A year passed, then 18 months, then almost 2 years. I continued to believe the story they gave me and spread in the press and on panels at Cannes. I took it hook, line and sinker, even to the point I began to apologize and take blame. Until, one day this summer, I stopped believing. They said ‘Never let a good crisis go to waste.’ And I began to discover The Martin Agency lied to me. They betrayed me. They left me for dead. They used my loss for their gain. Yes, I still believe. But I believe in something much bigger. The Truth. And I’m going to fight until The Truth is out there for everyone else to see. And believe.

14785: Ted Royer Is Adding Victims Who Deserve—And Demand—An Apology.

Advertising Age extended its lengthy coverage of the collateral damage created by Ted Royer’s dark comedy monologue staged at the recent LIA event. The reactions underscore the complexities of exclusivity and gender-based issues—as well as the diverse degrees of cultural cluelessness in adland.

Two outrageous responses came via condemnations from FCB and TIME’S UP/Advertising. Um, FCB being connected to IPG makes it rather hypocritical to express shock and distress, as the White holding company has produced some of the most scandalous sexual harassment cases to date. As for TIME’S UP/Advertising, well, the organization still has Wendy Clark—who hired Royer for freelance work—on its roster.

Advertising Age also revealed LIA President and Founder Barbara Levy recounted her personal sexual assault experience when the attendees displayed disapproval over Royer’s presence. Gee, a simpler apology than the ones Royer delivered would have sufficed.

Keep in mind, Royer projected mea culpas for his wife, Droga5 and the industry he loves. Yet there’s no remorse for the attendees who suffered through the spectacle.

Meanwhile, Ad Age collected reactions from lots of folks—with the glaring exception of a suddenly silent Royer. Wonder if the trade journal thought of asking David Droga for an opinion. Too many sources state Royer was fired after being targeted by Diet Madison Avenue. Sorry, the man got canned after a thorough investigation conducted by Droga5. If the dismissal was flawed, shouldn’t Royer show resentment for his ex-employer?

Others have opined that Royer deserves a second chance and should regain access to the field. Why? The industry has hardly collapsed due to the absence of Royer, Joe Alexander, Tham Khai Meng, Gustavo Martinez, Ralph Watson and Jeremy Perrott. Or Neil French. Forgiveness does not mean forgetfulness.

Ex-Droga5 CCO Ted Royer’s Recent Speech Sparks Widespread Anger, Some Praise And Calls To Action

Time’s Up Advertising demands apology; FCB cuts ties with organization

By Ann-Christine Diaz

Former Droga5 Chief Creative Officer Ted Royer’s appearance at an advertising event in Las Vegas this past weekend sparked heated, passionate reactions around the industry—from those in attendance and elsewhere.

Royer took the stage on Sunday morning and addressed the allegations of anonymous Instagram account Diet Madison Avenue that preceded his firing from Droga5 more than a year-and-a-half ago. While some praised Royer for being brave enough to speak, there was also plenty of shock and disbelief about his presence at the event from creatives both young and seasoned. Agency network FCB and advocacy group Time’s Up Advertising were moved to take action against the London International Awards, the organization that backed his presentation.

The Liaisons

The London International Award’s Creative Liaisons program ran over several days alongside its awards judging period, still continuing this week. Liaisons aims to provide promising talents with the skills to ensure their success. “Liaisons is designed to be a creative oasis in an industry that is in danger of focusing less and less on its creative output. We stand for the work and those who make it,” reads the description on its site.

During this year’s event, however, some attendees found Royer’s presentation the opposite of a “creative oasis.”

One attendee was so affected by his presence that she left the room crying, prompting festival president and founder Barbara Levy to take the podium and apologize, even recounting her own experience of sexual assault in 1983.

Some Liaisons attendees told Ad Age they felt Royer’s presentation was geared not toward their enrichment. “It was a redemption speech, in my opinion,” says one female creative. In interviews, others called it “tone-deaf” and “inappropriate.” “Everything about it felt very wrong for me,” another attendee tells Ad Age, “even if what he was trying to do was be a better person. He did it in a horrible way, in a really weird context. He’s telling us that all these victims are liars, but some of us in the room were sexual assault victims.”

Royer was asked during the Q&A session why he was presenting at that place and time. “It’s the first thing I’ve been invited to,” he said. “I wanted to talk to creatives because the things that I have learned and have embraced, and tried to embody over the last year-and-a-half I think are very relevant to young creatives. I wanted to level-set and I really wanted to give back to this industry.”

Lacking empathy

One of the points Royer made repeatedly during his presentation was his desire to meet face-to-face with people, including those he has hurt, as a means of opening up communication and promoting “understanding and empathy.”

But some attendees say that his presentation itself lacked empathy. “My issue with what he was saying was the implication that it was my responsibility to resolve the problem,” says copywriter Sydnie Felton of VMLY&R in Kansas City, Missouri. “I would have loved to hear his perspective, even if he gave advice for if you find yourself in a difficult situation, and how you can come out of it in the best possible way and not feel your career is threatened. Everything was about protecting men in his position rather than empowering us with the proper tools.”

“A lot of us were visibly shaken, but so were the guys,” says another female creative. “A lot of them afterwards were apologizing to the women in the room.”

She also observed a curious difference in the reactions from the crowd. “A lot of the women were talking about how inappropriate it was, while the guys were talking about accountability,” she says.

“As soon as he started talking, I thought it was a bit surreal because almost immediately he positioned himself as a victim—these are the things that happened to me,” one male attendee tells Ad Age. “He very clearly did not seem to understand these things happened because of his actions and decisions.”

But “I don’t want to dogpile,” he adds. “I saw a broken dude who lost everything, and I want him to find peace and turn this fucked-up thing into something good. I think he just messed up. He squandered a good opportunity and put the burden on the victims. He really needed to take accountability.”

LIA misstep

For some in the audience, the bigger issue wasn’t Royer’s speech, but the fact that it was unannounced—or at least poorly announced—especially in light of the fact that some in the audience had endured harassment or assault themselves. Royer’s name and picture had not been on the program’s online schedule until the week of the event, and in the printed program, his slot listed only “Guest Speaker.” When the show presenter brought Royer to the stage he gave an awkward, quick intro: “I have no idea what this session is going to be about, but I do know that his work speaks for itself.”

“We’re sitting there, on our schedule it says ‘Guest Speaker’ and we’re completely unaware that he was coming,” says one female creative. “It felt like it should have been an op-ed that people could choose to read or not. We were completely unaware—or made to be unaware, in my opinion, that he was coming. I think it was a really big misstep from the program.”

Creatives were also upset by how LIA addressed the adverse reactions to the talk. After the attendee who was in tears left the room, Levy said, “We just had a little incident and I want to apologize to anyone who felt uncomfortable. It didn’t occur to me that the topic he was talking about might make some of you feel uncomfortable.” Levy then went on to reveal her rape in 1983.

“When Barbara tried to use her own sexual assault story to justify their reasoning for bringing him there, it left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth,” says one creative.

Another creative, however, tells Ad Age, “I was very impressed that Barbara instantly got up on stage and apologized. For me personally I was happy to move on from there."

Some Liaisons also say that Royer’s presence didn’t prevent them from reaping the benefits of the other parts of the program. CHE Proximity Melbourne copywriter Lauren Eddy and art director Aicha Wijland, in industry publication Campaign Brief, wrote that while they felt “robbed” by Royer’s talk, they still learned valuable lessons in empathy and unconscious bias from other workshops and speakers, including award-winning journalist Lara Logan.

Another creative affected by the speech still called the program as a whole an “unbelievable experience” that left him eager to go back to his agency and start applying what he learned.

“We can see that our misstep was not taking greater initiative to inform the attendees of the schedule change once the conference started,” said Levy in a statement to Ad Age.

As for how she handled her apology to the audience after Royer’s talk, she explained that the intense reaction of one particular participant moved her to speak to the crowd. “I went to have a conversation with her and then felt the need to address the audience,” she said. “In the wake of all the emotion in the room, I may have taken a miscue and been too open about my own personal experience.”

The leaders in the room

While Royer’s presentation was meant for young creatives, a number of industry leaders who were judging the LIA Awards took a break to hear him speak.

During the Q&A session, Edelman Chief Creative Officer Judy John took the opportunity to shed light on questions presented to Royer regarding the “burden” of having to speak to or report an accuser. “As a young creative I’ve been in compromising positions as I think some other women in the room have,” she said in that session. “It’s hard to go to your boss or superior and say, that wasn’t cool… because you might lose your job, you might get blackballed, you might be a troublemaker. There are a lot of reasons why women don’t come forward.”

Another female industry leader echoed the sentiment of the young creatives. “Bringing up DMA and all those accusations were not necessary for someone who was accepting responsibility and apologizing to anyone he hurt,” she tells Ad Age. “But there has to be a path forward for anyone who wants to move forward in my opinion.”

She was also struck by the generational differences in the reactions to his talk. “For the most part my generation is a bit numb from growing up with all of the bad stuff,” she says. “We are happy to be talking about it and see a new awareness, but we are mostly focused on the wage gap and opportunities for women at the highest levels. Comments about how we dress have little effect, and attempts for romance or otherwise are annoying but not shocking.”

The younger generation represented by the LIA participants, however, seems to have very different reactions, she says. “There is a lot of anger and they don’t feel like they can talk. They feel way better hiding behind social media because they are used to it. They feel like we are enablers, and by being complacent we didn’t clean it up for them. That comment about their outfit is like a slap in the face.”

Veteran producer Oliver Fuselier thought Royer’s move “was a lesson in humility and true bravery,” he tells Ad Age. He “put it all out on the stage, from apologizing to the room of young creatives and beyond as well as putting his email address on the screen with a standing offer to meet with anyone that he hurt, angered or made feel bad... We as a society need to help us all to find a way to move forward and allow men to start righting their wrongs and healing themselves. We must still hold them accountable, but at the same time support them in their own road to recovery.”

Another industry leader in the room for the speech added that despite what happened, the LIA’s program is still important for the industry. “I believe in the power of learning and the LIA Creative Liaisons team has so far funded almost 1,000 young creatives from around the world to attend the program,” he says. “I urge young creatives who have attended Creative Liaisons over the years to also share their positive experiences so others who haven’t attended it will continue to attend and benefit from it. The learning must never stop.”

Ad Age reached out to Royer about the reactions to his speech, but he declined comment.

The Industry

The industry has begun to take action in response to the speech. FCB, which had both creatives in the Liaisons program and as judges in the LIA, announced it would be terminating its relationship with the awards show. “A recent presentation given at the LIA was deeply upsetting to some of our team in attendance, and the reaction and response by the LIA has been very disappointing and unsatisfactory,” the agency said in a statement.

In a letter to Levy and the other organizers of the LIA, Time’s Up Advertising also took issue with how Royer’s speech was not properly publicized to the attendees. “You left no option for consent,” the letter read. “You showed disrespect for LIA attendees who have been harmed by Royer’s behavior, specifically, or faced similarly disturbing behavior in the workplace. You signaled that his voice is worth a platform, while our voices aren’t worth believing.”

The organization then went on to list the actions LIA should take in the wake of this incident: apologize, publicly commit to creating a safer and more inclusive environment “that respects women,” and be transparent.

If LIA does not heed this advice, Time’s Up Advertising Executive Director Christena Pyle said in an additional statement to Ad Age that the organization is “prepared to take further action.”

Levy told Ad Age in her statement that the LIA has been communicating with FCB on the agency’s decision to sever ties with the organization.

“We apologize if we inadvertently upset anyone during at the LIAisons program,” she said. “We will work closer with the agencies and the top-level creatives to better curate the program moving forward.”

Contributing: Lindsay Rittenhouse

14766: Erin Johnson Discusses Post-Harassment Stress Disorder.

Advertising Age appears to be providing harassment gender equality, balancing the Joe Alexander report with a seemingly unabridged and unfiltered Erin Johnson interview. The piece is titled, “Erin Johnson on Sexual Harassment, J. Walter Thompson and Finding Out Who Her Friends Are.” Okay, the illustrator responsible for the interview image (depicted above) is definitely not a friend, as the rendering ain’t very flattering. One surprising revelation is that TIME’S UP/Advertising has never contacted Johnson. Perfect. What’s next for Ad Age—an insert spotlighting Gustavo Martinez?

Erin Johnson on Sexual Harassment, J. Walter Thompson and Finding Out Who Her Friends Are

In the aftermath of her suit against WPP, exec speaks out

By I-Hsien Sherwood

Eight months before the #MeToo movement began to play out in Hollywood, the global chief communications officer at J. Walter Thompson filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against the agency and its global CEO. Erin Johnson alleged inappropriate physical contact and racist, sexist and anti-Semitic comments—including jokes about raping female staffers—from Gustavo Martinez.

For the next two years, the suit dragged through the courts. WPP and its then-CEO Martin Sorrell were accused of digging in their heels when most agencies at the time opted to handle such matters quietly. As subsequent harassment scandals erupted at shops including The Martin Agency and Droga5, Johnson was put in a position uncharacteristic of a PR professional—constantly named in headlines, but unable to speak publicly during pending litigation.

Three-and-a-half years after filing her suit and nearly 18 months after reaching an undisclosed settlement with WPP, Johnson is dealing with a very different industry landscape. Sorrell has been ousted from the holding company he founded and now runs S4 Capital. WPP finally parted ways with Martinez two months following the settlement, after some reshuffling to quietly put him in charge of operations in Spain.

As for JWT, once the oldest advertising agency in the world, it’s gone, folded into Wunderman Thompson late in 2018.

Johnson left the industry, too, for a time, spending less than a year as chief communications officer at tech start-up Gifnote, for whom she remains an advisor. She spoke with Ad Age about the personal costs of bringing a harassment lawsuit, the #MeToo movement and what’s next for her. Our conversation has been edited and condensed.

J. Walter Thompson is gone, merging with Wunderman last year. How does that make you feel?

Very sad. Depressed. A little angry. It was such a great brand. I remember we had worked so hard to celebrate the future at the 150th anniversary [in 2014], and I was part of that. I loved the brand. I still love the brand. I’m sad that it’s not there anymore; it’s devastating to me.

For people who haven’t experienced harassment at work, what is it like to be in that kind of environment?

Sadly, I think a lot of people know how it feels because they deal with it every day. I think every woman has stories like mine. It’s like a death of a thousand cuts. And over the course of my career, I’ve experienced all sorts of things—inappropriate comments, inappropriate touching. Women especially have been taught or been told that it’s just the way it is.

How did you come to the decision that your only recourse was to file a lawsuit?

Everybody has a line. And when that line is crossed, it’s kind of like you can’t live with yourself unless you do something about it. This situation in particular with Gustavo began to cross the line of my ability to look myself in the mirror and accept it.

It’s really scary. I know I believe in myself. I know that I’m standing up for myself, but I also know the power of a billion-dollar company. You question and question and question yourself. I remember sitting up at night with my husband, at like 3 in the morning, debating what to do, because at a certain point I knew I had to file or not do anything. I kept saying “This is going to uproot our lives. This is not going to be quick. We could lose the house, we could lose everything [because of legal fees].” And I was terrified about what could happen to me. You go to really dark places. How would I afford mortgage bills? How would I pay for the kids? How would I continue to live? Who would hire me again? Would I be blacklisted forever? And my husband just said, “Babe, nobody treats you like this. We’ll sell the house. It’s just a house. We’ll get an apartment. It’s just about us and the kids.” He said, “You work too hard, and this is not O.K. I got you.” And he took away all my fear that night, because I was so afraid.

In hindsight, there’s a consensus that the holding company handled your case poorly. How should a company respond to allegations like yours?

Handle it immediately. Believe them. Believe them and support them.

The legal filings detail your work conditions during the lawsuit. But what were the effects on other parts of your life?

I have a way of making jokes about it to offset the reality of the fear and the stress about it. But it was exhausting and isolating and lonely. You wake up thinking about it, you go to bed thinking about it. You have nightmares about it. I mean, it was my life for two years, and trying to be a good mom and a good caregiver and a good partner, it’s really hard.

And I think the kids definitely picked up on a lot of my stress. They had a lot of questions because they overheard certain names, so they would ask about “Who’s this? Who’s that?” Or “Why is Mommy crying? Why is Mommy so sad?” I had to explain to them in ways that a young preschooler and kindergartner at the time could understand. How do you explain that to a child?

With all this, did you ever have second thoughts? Did you ever wish you had kept quiet or gotten a different job?

No, never. Never. I would do it all over again if I had to. It was the right thing to do.

You were deep in litigation when the #MeToo movement emerged. What did it feel like watching it unfold but not being able to say anything?

I think that The New Yorker and The New York Times did amazing work, and any woman or any person that comes forward is very brave. I applaud anyone standing up for themselves, but it was a very lonely eight months before then. I was out there alone for a long time.

How do you think your case affected the way #MeToo played out in the advertising industry?

I would like to think that my case did have a multiplier effect. I’ve gotten emails and phone calls from many people in the business who have subsequently stood up for themselves. So I know that it has had a positive impact.

How much support did you receive from people in the industry?

That’s a complicated question, because part of the problem is change happens when the people who are holding the purse strings can implement it. There was a company that in the early days of my suit wrote a wonderful tweet about me and how they supported me. I have a screen grab of it, and it was really nice. And then three days later, the tweet was deleted. That was devastating, but also eye-opening—so that’s how it’s going to be. Someone got their hand slapped for publicly endorsing me. The bottom line is still the bottom line.

Was there more support in private?

There was a lot of private support from people who couldn’t go public because they were too afraid of backlash, which was really sad. To me it was like, “That’s great, but that and $2.75 will get me on the subway.” I’m all about transparency. If you can’t support me publicly, don’t bother calling me privately.

Did that change after the suit was settled?

A lot of people who were not reaching out to me, reached out to me about how much they believed in me and blah, blah, blah. But I don’t talk to anyone who suddenly found their voice after they knew which way the wind was blowing. I really learned who my friends were, and I learned a lot about the character of others.

Have you worked with any groups on #MeToo issues, like Time’s Up Advertising?

I’ve never been contacted by Times Up Advertising. I didn’t even know it was launching.

How do you handle the notoriety?

I do worry that there’s always going to be an asterisk next to my name for companies that would want to hire me. People who are plugged into what happened in the industry recognize my name. In entertainment and tech, not as much. It was kind of a relief, actually, working in tech.

What’s next for you?

I kind of was adjacent to the industry for a year, and now I’m trying to figure out what’s next because I’m someone who loves to work. This summer, I’ve had more time to think about what I want. But I probably was pushing feelings away. I was able to lock up my feelings, like I just wasn’t ready to process them. It’s really been like a death for me, and I’m mourning my life. For so long, your career is part of your identity.

But I’ve had enough time to wait at the beach with my kids and try some new things. I don’t rest well. I’m better busy. So I want to do something that makes me happy. Something that I can believe in.

14765: Joe Alexander Wants His Name Back—Retail Value $25 Million.

Advertising Age reported ex-Martin Agency Chief Creative Officer Joe Alexander filed a lawsuit against Diet Madison Avenue, with plans to also sue his former White advertising agency and White holding company IPG. Gee, for an award-winning creative type, the move is not very original—it’s a copycat of the Ralph Watson campaign for justice. Alexander added a twist by also targeting Adweek and writer Patrick Coffee.

In a statement, Alexander wrote:

“My parents named me Joe Alexander. But that name no longer exists. It’s gone. My full identity was stolen. The thieves gave me a new name. Predator. They also like Creep. Misogynist. Or plain old Pig. Just look it up. They used every weapon imaginable to take my good name, reputation and career away.

Deception. Lies. Intimidation. Coercion. Smears. The amazing thing? It all happened in broad daylight, in front of millions. There was nothing I could do. No chance to defend myself. They hit me hard and left me for dead. Or at least they thought they did. Today, I start the due process to get my name back. Joe Alexander. The name my father and mother gave me. It’s mine. I own it. No one can take it away.”

Wow, that’s funnier than a GEICO commercial. Alexander is seeking over $25 million as compensation for the identity theft. If successful, he could rename himself Steve AustinX4.

Oh, and the DMA crew better restart its GoFundMe donation drive.

Former Martin Agency Exec Joe Alexander Sues Diet Madison Avenue And Adweek

Suit seeks $25 million; attorney says plaintiff plans to also take legal action against his former employer and parent Interpublic Group

By Ann-Christine Diaz

Nearly two years after he departed from The Martin Agency following allegations of sexual misconduct, former Chief Creative Officer Joe Alexander is suing anonymous social media account Diet Madison Avenue, along with industry publication Adweek and its former editor-at-large, Patrick Coffee.

Alexander and his attorney Steven Biss, who works out of his own firm based out of Charlottesville, Virginia, filed a complaint yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint alleges that the defendants participated in defamatory and conspiratorial actions that “tortiously” interfered with Alexander’s business activities—that is, they intentionally aimed to harm his employment.

The suit claims that “false and defamatory accusations of sexual harassment and other misconduct” published by DMA on its social accounts and what it calls DMA Doe Defendants 1-17 “destroyed” everything Alexander had worked for throughout his career. The suit lists his various career accomplishments, including his work on the long-running Geico “Gecko” ads, as well as accolades at adfests such as the Cannes Lions, One Show and Clios.

The complaint also claims that Adweek and Coffee acted “in concert with or on behalf of DMA and the DMA Doe Defendants, published a damning indictment of Joe, citing unnamed ‘sources,’ anonymous ‘women,’ an unidentified ‘former executive,’ and unidentified ‘former employees’ and ‘former co-workers,’” referring to a December 2017 article repeatedly referred to in the suit as the “Adweek Hit Piece.”

Alexander is seeking compensatory and punitive damages to the tune of $25,350,000, along with additional fees, including those related to court costs and expenses. He’s seeking damages “for the extreme insult, pain, embarrassment, humiliation, mental suffering” and destruction of his career and reputation, as well as financial loss due to contract interference, “common law conspiracy,” defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the suit says.

“My parents named me Joe Alexander. But that name no longer exists,” Alexander said in a statement. “It’s gone. My full identity was stolen. The thieves gave me a new name. Predator. They also like Creep. Misogynist. Or plain old Pig. Just look it up. They used every weapon imaginable to take my good name, reputation and career away.

Deception. Lies. Intimidation. Coercion. Smears. The amazing thing? It all happened in broad daylight, in front of millions. There was nothing I could do. No chance to defend myself. They hit me hard and left me for dead. Or at least they thought they did. Today, I start the due process to get my name back. Joe Alexander. The name my father and mother gave me. It’s mine. I own it. No one can take it away.”

Ad Age reached out to DMA's attorney A. Louis Dorny of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, as well as Adweek and Coffee, who is now employed by Business Insider. Dorny said that as of now he has no comment and said he has yet to see the complaint. Adweek and Coffee have not yet responded to multiple requests for comment.

Elaborating on the suit, Alexander’s attorney Biss said that “acting in concert with DMA and the DMA Does, Adweek and Coffee promoted the preconceived storyline and served as a megaphone to broadly publish the false narrative about Joe Alexander.”

The suit also mentions Interpublic Group of Cos., the holding company that owns The Martin Agency, which is part of the McCann Worldgroup network. It alleges that IPG ordered The Martin Agency to terminate Alexander following false statements made by DMA and DMA defendants in November 2017, “in the hopes that DMA would not look further into the cover-up of sexual harassment by the ‘C-suite’ and/or the handling of sexual harassment claims by IPG/Martin.”

When Ad Age asked Biss if there are any plans with regards to Alexander’s former employer, he said “IPG, The Martin Agency and others are not innocent bystanders,” and that Alexander “expects to take legal action within the next 30 days to fully address the harm caused by IPG, The Martin Agency and certain of their agents and employees.”

In response, IPG said in a statement, “We stand by our actions and processes in this case and would defend our position vigorously against a potential suit.”

Alexander left The Martin Agency in December 2017 following the shop’s internal investigation into sexual harassment allegations, prompted by posts that had surfaced on the anonymous social media account Diet Madison Avenue.

Alexander’s complaint summarizes what he alleges to be the defamatory portions of the Adweek story and links to the story. For the article, Adweek interviewed 10 women and one man, two of whom were named in the story—Sissy Estes, who worked at The Martin Agency from 2007 to 2012, and Senior Art Director Daniela Montañez, who worked there from 2007 to 2013. The story also said that the interviewees had reported concerns about Alexander’s behavior to the agency, with incidents dating back to the 1990s.

The complaint refers to the Adweek story at length and challenges multiple statements in the story. The Adweek story had reported that one woman said Alexander’s nickname in the 2000s was “HR Joe.” The trade pub also reported that one woman who worked in the creative department at The Martin Agency was fired by Alexander after she repeatedly rejected his advances. One employee’s complaint was settled in 2013 for an undisclosed sum, the Adweek story said. In the story, Adweek did report that Alexander denied the claims and said, “The allegations you are reporting on are false. All of them.”

The suit states that “virtually every article” published by Coffee for Adweek between December 2017 and July 2019 “contains provably false and defamatory statements about Joe.”

Adweek is owned by Canadian private-equity firm Beringer Capital.

At the time of his departure, Alexander told Ad Age in a statement that the decision to leave was his. “Rather than a drawn-out, hurtful investigation, resigning was the proper thing to do to protect my family and all the people I’ve worked so closely together with in my 26 wonderful years,” he said.

Days later, The Martin Agency then followed with a note to staff saying “The decision was ours” when it came to Alexander’s departure.

The suit filed yesterday, however, centers on the activities Alexander says led to his “termination” at the agency: “DMA and its agents and co-conspirators caused The Martin Agency to summarily terminate Joe’s employment without any due process or opportunity to be heard.”

When asked about the contradiction between what he previously told Ad Age and what’s stated in the complaint, Biss said, “Joe resigned to avoid the ignominy and to spare the agency, but he was given no real choice. IPG had its mind made up. It was a sham. Rather than face a kangaroo inquisition, Mr. Alexander left with his dignity and self-respect.”

“What happened to Joe Alexander was an egregious violation of fundamental principles of due process,” Biss added.

See a copy of the full complaint [at Advertising Age]