Thanks for your comments. It’s important to point out, as both you and Jack do, that there are many ways/many different channels through which people concerned about homophobic adverts can work to have these adverts off the air. The efforts by the HRC and other groups that targeted the client (Mars) were indeed effective at eliminating this particular instance of homophobia. So, we know that this strategy, well executed, works.

But there is an additional issue here: this is the second time in a year that activists have had to pressure Mars to withdraw a homophobic advert. So, while activists’ pressure on the client can work for a particular episode, emphasizing this particular channel of action assumes that activists will be the ‘filter’ or the ‘fix’. This is much too far downstream for me– I’d rather the problems were fixed closer to the point of the ads’ creation.

Were the inconsistencies between ‘valuing’ policies and ‘homophobic’ actions to be addressed by Wren/ Omnicom, Mars would never even be presented with a homophobic ad, because none of the Ominicom agencies would produce homophobic ads for Mars. Better still, there would be no homophobic ads presented to ANY of the Ommicom agencies’ clients.

Authenticity is values agnostic. Bad organizations can be authentic or not, good organizations can be authentic or not. When any organization claims to be or be for some value that is not demonstrated in its actions, that organization’s stakeholders can use authenticity as an argument for changing the organization’s behavior. In this particular situation, stakeholders could pressure both Mars and Omnicom to act authentically re: their organization’s stated values, since both organizations make claims to value diversity, etc.

It’s like with dandelions — you can monitor your lawn and pull off the seedheads before they disperse, you can pull off the flowers before they turn to seed, and you can pull up the weed by the roots. All of these actions can stop another weed from growing and are useful, but the actions that get closer to the root of the problem have a larger, more systemic impact. That’s why I’m emphasizing the opportunity– in this case, the *missed* opportunity — to address homophobic advertising somewhat closer to its roots.

The Snickers ad featuring Mr T (available for viewing at Youtube) is truly sick. CV argues above that a focus on authenticity might prevent ads such as these from appearing. But that’s only true if the organization truly cares about respect and equality for LGBT people. What do we say when organizations, by their actions, show that they don’t really care about these things? And what can be done if we observe homophobic actions from organizations that are silent, or decline to take a stand for LGBT equality (such as the dozens of Fortune 500 companies that still refuse to adopt policies of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation)? These organizations may be authentic in the sense that they then engage in homophobic actions consistent with their (neutral or bad) values. Appeals to authenticity will therefore do little good. It’s this possibility — the possibility that the corporate values actually are amoral or homophobic — that may lead people to miss the authenticity point (even if they see it) and move directly to the harm of homophobia.

Did you notice that I linked to your website to flag your point of view, without even knowing that HighJine and Jack Jones were the same guy? I wanted to quote your comment on cluelessness but I couldn’t find a way to fit it in…. Hmmmm…

While I am concerned in general about homophobia in advertising, I was looking at a different part of this situation, which is that the leader of the org is not making sure himself, or putting systems in place himself, to align the organization’s policies with its practices. This is admittedly not the ‘hot button’ that most are responding to. Authenticity is a meta-issue that, if addressed, would fix the homophobia problem.

Organizational authenticity would also be an issue if the ads were sexist, racist, or even just plain ineffective. Because Omnicom says it stands for certain (social and creative) values…these should be reflected in what the agencies produce. Precisely because Omnicom Group agencies produce so many ads, it’s dumb to expect that the CEO himself should vet the ads. Instead, he should institute appropriate systems to make sure that they all achieve the standards that Omnicom claims it holds.

Directing a protest at M&M/Mars would be a way to address the homophobia in the ads themselves (and at the client that approved the ads). What, though, do you recommend be done to address the attitudes & lack of diversity within agencies that makes it so easy for some to create homophobic ads?

But more to my point, what do you suggest as a way to get Wren (or any leader) to address inauthenticity? If Wren were to lead in a way that had the org walk its talk, that would address both the homophobia that ticks you off and the inauthenticity that bothers me.

Given your insight into the industry, are you sure you want to throw in the towel on these issues?

I don’t think you completely understand my perspective (I commented as Jack Jones). Plus, you clearly don’t understand the advertising industry (that’s a good thing, incidentally).

I’m afraid I don’t have the time to elaborate, but you should check out this source for additional insight.

It’s not that I ignored Garfield’s issue of wanting to connect with Wren. It’s just that I realize it’s not going to happen. If anything, the protests should be directed at Snickers—they’ll then seek out Wren, if they wish. If you check Advertising Age this week, you’ll see another lead story starring Mr. Wren. He discusses the key topics related to Omnicom, and advertising—especially a Snickers spot—isn’t even part of the discussion. Wren’s companies literally produce thousands of commercials per year. He’s not going to stop his day to discuss one—unless a client calls him. Bob Garfield does not have the authority or credibility to affect Wren’s day planner.

Plus, as you’ll see if you check out the source above, I think Bob Garfield missed the real point.

Cheers.