Agencies considering pulling out despite Campaign Brief apology; Questions arise around ‘pay to play’ model
The industry erupted this week after trade forum Campaign Brief released the latest edition of The Work, with the spread showcasing a clear lack of diverse representation across the board. As the industry reflects, questions are beginning to emerge around the publication's 'pay to play' policy. While the forum's publisher, Michael Lynch, and industry body, the Advertising Council of Australia, have finally spoken out, some agencies are asking if it is too late, as they consider cutting their relationships with Campaign Brief.
By now, I’m sure we’ve all seen the lists which appear to celebrate the best advertising work across Asia, Australia and Aotearoa. The double-page spread in question from The Work 2024, Campaign Brief’s annual award show, showcased the Australian winners with headshots of the agency CCOs and production leaders.
But with the double-page spread featuring zero women, and the most recent BestAds ranking lists of Top Creatives, ECDs and CDs featuring just one woman, the enormous issue of the lack of diversity in creative leadership really shines through.
The conversation – led by women in the creative world, including Jet Swain, Jasmin Bedir, Esther Clerehan, and more – blew up on LinkedIn.
“My problem with Campaign Brief is that nobody saw this. In 2024, not one person looked at the pages full of men and thought ‘oh shit, we’ve got a problem’,” Jet Swain, who has worked in the creative and design industries for over 30 years, told Mumbrella.
“I think women have reached a burning point, I think we’re beyond angry. And it is a very sensitive subject, and we’re not going to break the patriarchy overnight, but we’re angry all the time now,” she said. “And I got fed up, so I started posting about it.
“Now, we’ve got Cindy Gallop talking about it, we’ve got colleagues overseas talking about it, we’ve got the whole industry on LinkedIn talking about it. But we didn’t have Campaign Brief or ACA talking about it.”
For days, there was nobody around to answer the questions. More people were weighing into the conversation online, but nobody was taking accountability.
On Thursday, advertising industry body, the Advertising Council of Australia (ACA), finally issued a statement on the fall out of The Work 2024, addressing the problem that is gender representation in Australian advertising.
“It is immensely disappointing that we still need to have this discussion,” Tony Hale, CEO of the ACA, wrote.
“In light of this week’s discussions, it is worth stating that there is gender balance across ACA’s Board, AWARD Council, AWARD School applicants and winners, AWARD Creative Leadership delegates, AWARD Award and Effie Award judges, and almost every program that ACA runs. Not because we work hard to achieve parity but because the best candidates naturally emerge.
“While we still have a long way to go, the only way to overcome discrimination and lack of inclusivity is to create an industry culture that simply does not tolerate it,” Hale’s statement read. “We are a better industry than this. If we are truly committed to equity, it is incumbent on individuals and businesses to only align with those who share and represent their values.”
Later on Thursday, following the ACA’s statement, Campaign Brief’s publisher and editor, Michael Lynch, surfaced publicly and issued an apology.
“At Campaign Brief, we take the concerns raised by the community seriously, especially regarding gender representation in the advertising industry. These LinkedIn discussions have sparked important conversations about the lack of women in senior creative leadership roles, and we agree that this highlights a broader issue within the industry,” he wrote.
“While the list reflects the current makeup of leadership in creative departments, it is not an endorsement of the imbalance. We recognise the significant contributions of women across all sectors of the industry – whether in management, media, account service, or production – and fully support efforts to increase female representation in creative leadership.”
However, in response to questions from Mumbrella, Lynch defended the list, saying it is reflective of the advertising industry as the rankings come from the credits supplied by agencies, and it is “not Campaign Brief’s fault”.
“It is not Campaign Brief’s fault that all the top Chief Creative Officers of this year’s top nine Australian ad agencies are men. The year before Tara Ford was one of the nine,” he said.
“If it was a list of the best in the industry, several women would be right up at the top, including The Monkeys’ CCO Tara Ford and ECD Barbara Humphries. After all, The Monkeys are the current Campaign Brief Agency of the Year.
“The credits are what they are. Going forward we will feature the work only, not pics of the CCOs of the winning agencies, which admittedly was a big mistake.”
What has also shone through, on top of the obvious, are issues around Campaign Brief’s subscription model, often described as a ‘pay to play’ concept.
While entrance to The Work is free, until work is accepted and an ‘acceptance fee’ is paid, questions surround other aspects of the forum’s modell.
In this context – with more ‘editorial’ coverage come points, and the more points, the higher a creative is then ranked in the BestAds lists.
Mumbrella notes that while BestAds is owned by Campaign Brief, Lynch has maintained it is a separate business.
“Many people have pointed out that the points system that CB uses is flawed,” TrinityP3’s senior global consultant, Kylie Ridler-Dutton, explained to Mumbrella.
“From TrinityP3’s perspective, we have a bigger issue with the ‘pay to play’ model. What people don’t realise is that Campaign Brief’s list isn’t the best creatives, it’s the best creatives from a pool of agencies which paid to be part of their system.
“The entry of the ACA is welcome and was sorely needed. While it’s great that they have highlighted the initiatives that they as an industry body are doing, such as Create Space, we also need to talk about the issue of how ‘pay to play’ is distorting the talent that is being surfaced and how this is leading to lists like the ones we saw in Campaign Brief,” she continued.
“It would be great to hear from the industry bodies about whether this pay to play model complies with AANA standards around disclosure of paid content.”
Swain echoed Ridler-Dutton’s point: “That skews the results and nobody knows that.
“You don’t get your work into BestAds and you will never make one of those lists unless you work for an agency that is a paid member.
“And not enough people know that, and that’s a problem.”
‘Pay to play’ models create clear barriers for smaller players who don’t have the same financial freedom as large agencies – an experience too familiar for The Open Arms’ founder, Jess Lilley.
Taking to LinkedIn this week, she shared her experience from 2022 with the trade forum’s lack of transparency around its policy.
“In response to Campaign Brief claiming their list is simply a merit based reflection of the industry landscape: Lol, no it fucking isn’t,” she wrote.
“In 2022 (at the request of a client and against our better judgement) we shared our first national campaign with Campaign Brief. They told us we’d have to pay $300 – $500 for a single post, more to have our work included in all the things that lead to these lists.
“We of course said ‘yeah nah thanks bro’, and have been very happy to walk away from all this stuff ever since.
“So when they claim today in the year of 2024 that this list is a realistic reflection of the creative talent in this country, we need to emerge from our comfortable girl cocoons and hiss,” Lilley wrote in her LinkedIn post.
“Own your bullshit system and have the basic decency to be honest about what it is.”
In the email exchange seen by Mumbrella, Campaign Brief said due to falling advertising revenue because of Covid, the publication has been “forced to limit new articles to companies that support our resources”.
Various financial options were then offered to Lilley, and in return, the campaign would get editorial coverage.
She asked the Campaign Brief team if they would make that policy public, if they would apply it across all content, or, since agencies are paying to get editorial coverage, if sponsored posts would be clearly marked.
Lilley claims that Campaign Brief never responded to her questions.
Vaynermedia’s senior creative, Char Meldrum-Hanna, also raised questions about the ‘pay to play’ concept.
“If you truly cared about diversity, the women in your teams, and the mental health of your agencies, Campaign Brief would be the first thing axed from your trade PR budget,” she wrote on LinkedIn.
“Let’s stop pretending they’re anything other than pay to play. This is an open secret, and I say that with certainty, having worked in trade media and PR for creative agencies. Why are we still hiding it? Why are we defending it? By supporting Campaign Brief, we’re actively feeding the toxicity that poisons this industry.
“This is important to every creative on every level – we should all be asking where the work is published – and we should all be saying, fkn enough is enough already.”
Lynch maintained that BestAds is free and Campaign Brief does not use a ‘pay to play’ model.
“With the global BestAds Rankings, they are simply the automated field credits for work being selected in the Top 6 of the Week. BestAds, which started in 2004, is totally free and open to all agencies and production companies globally to upload their latest work. Anyone from a small shop in Zimbabwe to a huge agency in New York,” he told Mumbrella.
“The credits supplied by each agency or production company are automatically added each week to the various ranking tables.”
When asked if this creates a barrier for smaller players, Lynch said: “No barrier, it’s free.”
The ACA declined to provide a comment outside of its official statement.
While the majority of men in the spread and rankings and their agency leaders remain silent on the issue at hand, there are some speaking up. One has spoken publicly, and some have told Mumbrella they will do better moving forward.
Taking to LinkedIn this week, Thinkerbell’s CEO, Margie Reid, and CCO, Jim Ingram (who features in the spread) shared their thoughts on the fall out of The Work and its portrayal of the industry.
“We understand the frustration of what has come to light over the past few days and we are actively contributing to the change required to create better diversity in our workplace and the Australian advertising industry as a whole,” Reid wrote in her post.
Ingram echoed: “I was taken by surprise when I saw the article come out, not just because I had no idea it was being published, but because it was a blunt reminder of the issue that’s been hiding in plain sight for years. But I’m committed to help generate the change we desperately need. I stand directly beside Margie Reid in her leadership of our agency, and the focus she’s leading in the development of women in roles right throughout Thinkerbell, including in our creative roles.”
Thinkerbell told Mumbrella it is in discussions with Campaign Brief on the issues this week, and are currently reviewing its relationship.
“We appreciate the statement issued by Campaign Brief, it shows a willingness to address the role in course correcting the gender inequality in featuring women. We will review this over the coming weeks,” the agency said.
Meanwhile, in a statement given to Mumbrella, DDB Group Australia said, while it will remain a subscriber of Campaign Brief and continue that relationship, it will take more responsibility in correcting the coverage.
“For every CB story, panel or list that they approach us to participate in, we’ll never put forward a male unless a 50/50 gender split on these stories has already been achieved,” the statement read.
“Our balance in the national creative leadership team isn’t good enough. While we continue to improve year on year, that’s not enough either. Which is why we have plenty more to do and a range of initiatives already in place that have been positively impacting our diversity, and our creativity.”
Chris Howatson, CEO of Howatson+Co, emulated DDB’s sentiment. He conceded that, while Howatson+Co’s leadership team has a 50/50 gender split, the agency needs to be doing more to support a diverse workplace, particularly in the creative and tech departments.
“This is not a problem that can be solved overnight and so we have implemented a number of short and long term strategies to maintain equal representation where it currently exists and to achieve it where it doesn’t,” he told Mumbrella.
“Campaign Brief is a mirror of our industry. We’ve got to focus on the cause, not the symptom. There’s opportunities for everyone to do better, and agencies need to focus on representation in our own businesses, and then we’ll see the media reflect a better environment.”
He said Howatson+Co will also review its relationship with the trade forum moving forward.
Mumbrella also contacted other agencies on the double-page spread, who did not respond prior to publication, or declined to provide a statement.
There is one major agency group, that also appeared on the double-page spread, that today announced its decision to pull out of Campaign Brief’s ‘pay to play’ game, and cut ties with the trade forum for now. It is not the first to do so, and won’t be the last.
In a statement posted to LinkedIn this morning, Clemenger Group – whose advertising agencies include Clemenger BBDO, CHEP Network, and Colenso BBDO, among others – said: “This is a great industry. But we can all do more to make it inclusive and supportive of the people within it. As part of this, we want to partner with organisations that encourage growth, positivity, and progression.
“For that reason, we’ll be ending our subscription with Campaign Brief and Bestadsontv.com.”
Clemenger BBDO’s CEO, Dani Bassil, shared the post, and simply stated: “A statement from us at Clemenger. It’s time for a new future for all of us.”
Indie creative agency ABEL also announced today that it would be removing its investment into Campaign Brief.
“At ABEL we talk alot about collaboration, about working together to make the work better. And it’s no different when it comes to making our industry better too. When we’re given the chance to say no to toxic culture and yes to more positive voices—we should all, collectively, make the most of it,” the agency said in a statement on LinkedIn.
“This industry should be a force for positivity in the world. It’s not just an opportunity but a responsibility. But if we can’t drive positive change and conversation within it, how can we expect to do the same outside of it?
“So in a commitment to driving more positive change, we are removing our investment in Campaign Brief and BestadsonTV and redirecting this to editorial and conversations which help create the future we want to see.”
In fact, some agencies pulled out of supporting Campaign Brief long ago – some were forced because of the lack of transparency around the ‘pay to play’ policy and the barriers it creates, and some because of its lack of accountability and duty of care.
The Open Arms has not engaged with Campaign Brief since its experience in 2022.
Lilley told Mumbrella she wasn’t surprised to see the lack of diversity in the lists, as that’s been an issue for decades, but what was disappointing was Campaign Brief’s “defensive lack of accountability and transparency in the resulting discussion”.
“Just accept you are part of the problem and let’s all agree to make less exclusive lists and more inclusive workplaces,” she said.
And following Innocean and Fck The Cupcakes’ experience last year with Campaign Brief, which resulted in Bedir receiving death threats to her personal email, the agency and the publication also broke off what was left of a relationship.
“[Campaign Brief] applies zero duty of care, takes zero accountability for the impact it has on creative talent in this industry and how unprofessional it makes the entire industry look, and yet it keeps on existing,” she told Mumbrella at the time.
While these situations are unpleasant, some positives have come from Campaign Brief’s controversies.
The toxic comment section of the publication inspired the Drop The Shade initiative last year, developed by Innocean and fellow indie agency Paper Moose, which aimed to understand how negative feedback affects creatives. It argued for the unfiltered comment section to be addressed, citing pervasive issues with mental health in the advertising industry.
The eye opening findings of the Drop The Shade survey were then turned into the Love Our Work Industry Charter – a voluntary code of conduct across agencies and publishers that aims to “rid ourselves of the toxicity” seen on professional forums.
If anything, this past week provides yet another opportunity for us all as an industry to reflect on how we can all improve.
It seems like Campaign Brief has listened to the industry, as Lynch told Mumbrella that today it will announce a much tougher comment moderation policy.
Trade publications – including Mumbrella – need to improve on their coverage and representation of a diverse industry. Agencies and brands need to improve on having diverse decision makers. And industry bodies – not just the ACA – need to improve on boosting their initiatives, ruling out ‘pay to play’ models, and ensuring diversity is being championed across the board.
Mumbrella has spent the past week reflecting, and while we are proud of the coverage we have done on female creatives, we know there is more to do, and areas for us to improve too.
Keep up to date with the latest in media and marketing
Got a tip?
Lauren McNamara is the associate editor at Mumbrella, covering the creative and PR beat. She joined in November 2022 as editorial assistant, after completing a Bachelor of Communications (Journalism) at UTS.
Linkedin
topics
ACA
Advertising Council of Australia
Campaign Brief
Chris Howatson
creative agency
DDB Australia
Howatson+Co
Jet Swain
Margie Reid
The Work
The Work 2024
Thinkerbell
Tony Hale
All award shows are pay to play. It’s called Entry Fees.
Are we going to see these same agencies boycott Cannes?
User ID not verified.
We’re discussing the lack of women, but why is there little discussion about the poor representation of those from black or Asian backgrounds in the industry? That’s just the diversity we can see. How many, say, are gay, have mobility issues or come from remote areas or poorer households? How many have mental illnesses that make work difficult?
This is a great example of why many people don’t like the inclusion movement. Everyone, I’d argue, wants a world where you progress through merit or talent, but the diversity movement can come across as very fake. It seems more concerned with looking good or promoting on-trend issues, rather than making a fairer world for all, regardless of background.
Finally, we talk about mental health and wellbeing, but where’s the concern for those that wrote the article? Are they monsters who deserve to be shamed and destroyed publically? Is this really the right, and most constructive, approach?
User ID not verified.
@Ad Critic – At least with Cannes etc., any agency that wants to enter pays the same fee and are judged by a panel of peers. Still not perfect, but at least paying more doesn’t mean a higher chance of “winning”.
User ID not verified.
How Best Ads works.
1. Whenever an agency does some work, something they like, they can upload it for free onto Best Ads.
2. Each week the publisher of Best Ads along with a chosen creative director from around the world select the best 6 ads uploaded that week.
3. Those ads are then written about and awarded a ‘Bestad’
The more good work you publish, then the more chance you have of being selected. Just about every one of the worlds best agencies are on this site and compete each week.
In order to make money Best Ads encourages agencies to take out subscriptions allowing deeper usage of the Bestads database. These subscriptions are about $100 each. But I don’t think they have anything to do with what work is or is not selected.
User ID not verified.
The hot cold list has looked fishy for ages…. a very unflattering picture is forming. A boys club scratching each others backs.
Lets see 1: More transparency. 2. Not just a celebration of faux diversity… but actual diversity.
User ID not verified.
So the creative agencies are punishing CB for accidentally holding the mirror up… now they want to turn the lights out. No change coming soon.
User ID not verified.
The state of the industry isn’t the fault of CB, but their Pay to Play model really needs a do-over.
I’ve been highly (HIGHLY) critical of Camapign Brief’s Pay to Play model when it comes to more (paid) editorial coverage = more points = higher rank in the BestAds lists, and the complete lack of transparency that this is the way it works. The BestAds list is more reflective of an agency’s budget and resources, not great and effective advertising. And worse, it’s presented to the world as a guide to which agencies brands should use if they want results.
Let’s see if my comment makes it onto this forum, becuase the last 2 times I’ve criticied CB’s BestAds, Mumbrella has jettisoned me from the comments.
User ID not verified.
The Australian BestAds list has the exact same top 10 names at the Spikes Asia and One Show top 10 rankings.
Very narrow sighted to see this as a Campaign Brief issue.
Also Mumbrella didn’t you just have 3 senior males review creative this week? Where’s your consideration.
Screenshotted this comment submission in case it doesn’t get published
User ID not verified.
Awards are a bit different people know about the fee and that it’s fully disclosed – before this week how many people knew every story on Campaign Brief was paid for content… bet you a lot of clients didn’t.
User ID not verified.
Does anyone have any visibility on judging criteria and why the rankings ended up the way they did? Diversity is an outcome of opportunity, not an objective in itself.
On the surface, it looks horrible, but yet to hear anyone say who should replace who?
The quantifiability of creative value or output or ideas is the issue here.
User ID not verified.
Where is Josh Faulks and Tony Hale on the lack of disclosure issue re pay to play??? Is the self regulatory regime really comfortable with the fact their member agencies are flouting the rules that we clients have to follow on a daily basis? How is this ok?
User ID not verified.
Ive yet to see a man do better than a woman in the same role outside of long lunches and overpromising without seeing if the team can actually achieve. “The best candidates emerge” mmm do they though?
User ID not verified.
Have your say