Creative departments subordinate women, says researcher who spent six months inside two Sydney agencies
Female creatives struggle to get work presented to clients or entered into awards, while women in account service roles are exploited into working long hours, a researcher who spent six months inside two of Australia’s largest creative agencies has reported.
Researcher Paul Priday spent the time embedded at Sydney agencies M&C Saatchi and McCann, along with Ogilvy in Shanghai and McCann in Delhi, before concluding: “Despite change being the lifeblood of the advertising industry, gender relations continue to protect the status of men through the organised subordination of women.”
Hi
What a fascinating piece of research. It helps to continue the conversation around a systemic issue in the industry. To call out McCann and M&C Saatchi in the headline is sensationalist and unfair. It makes the story and research about them, rather than the industry itself.
Thus Mumbrella you’ve taken a really important conversation and hi-jacked it for clicks. As someone who works in advertising ‘There by the grace of god goes I’.
Hi Us,
McCann and M&C were the only two Australian agencies covered in the thesis we are reporting on.
(If you skimmed the article, you may have been confused by the final line in which we mention the seperate research conducted last year featuring 15 agencies.)
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Totally agree that this is a fantastic conversation to be had – and being a male creative, gives me a fair amount to digest.
To say that you think it’s unfair and sensationalist to call out McCann and M&C Saatchi is a bit of a stretch though. The research clearly identifies issues, and highlights direct quotes from male creatives at these specific agencies…I found the title to be quite accurate.
You could always argue that the research didn’t have a big enough pool…but I honestly think that you’d find much of the same elsewhere.
Did you even read the article/research? The entire thing is focused on specific agencies he used as the basis of the study.
Not that the findings aren’t emblematic of the industry as a whole mind you.
Haha
Go.away troll
Just reading through the thesis…. gobsmacked. If that was was said when the microphone is on, you can only imagine how much worse it got when the mic was off!
Good point!
#waitletmegetmypopcorn
Interesting. But somebody has got to say it…
First of all, I’m not saying all is right in adland. Creative departments are highly competitive and attract lots of egos, and I know for a fact that not all men like the culture there either (btw, culture varies from agency to agency, two is not a representative sample). Similar cultures develop in a range of male dominated worksites (and similarly in female-dominated ones, albeit of a different nature), such as the army, construction sites etc. It’s just that they’re not glamorous enough for urban liberals to care about. For some reason feminists don’t want to take over the sewage cleaning and welding industries.
The problem is that this report is just as superficial and biased and devoid of critical analysis as the majority of market research we already use.
Priday is a gender-studies post-graduate, in other word someone who’s spent the last four years being taught that all masculinity is evil and oppressive and that women are snowflakes that need our protection. It’s not a field of research and inquiry, but of political propaganda, the objective of which is to educates activists. So make no mistake, the conclusion was written years ago. Now it was just a matter of confirming it. That in itself doesn’t make the conclusion wrong, but it makes the report next to useless.
A couple of case in point:
Priday states when he asked why this shift has happened (women taking over account service), he was told: “It is the result of declining media commissions and women’s superior organisations skills.”
He concludes: “In other words, women are cheaper and better organised.”
So one person confirms his bias and boom, there’s the conclusion.
Further, having one account person speculate on the dress code of the colleagues she doesn’t like, and using it as gospel doesn’t exactly demonstrate intellectual honesty and curiosity.
Of course, the temptation to use this report as future proof of institutionalised sexism will be too great to resist for some of you, but when you do, please site it. That way we know you’re just trying to score a cheap point.
And cue accusations of white male privilege, sexism, homophobia and misogyny in 3, 2, 1…
Yeah, that’s not what gender studies is. Actually it’s much more to do with semiotics. From a guy who studied it for 2 years.
It’s all good people, the straight white dudes say it’s just us overreacting.
What has my gender, skin color and sexual orientation (which you so confidently assume) got to do with anything? Seriously.
Why do you have to resort to ad hominem attacks?
Don’t you have the guts to engage in a dialogue based on arguments?
“ad hominem attacks” – oh you precious, precious soul.
Your ‘analysis’ of the field of gender studies for one, makes me think a reasoned debate with you is about as likely as a Female ECD.
Having worked in close to a dozen agencies in my time I can certainly say based on my experience, and the much broader experience of people I’ve met across adland, that these findings hold pretty true.
I do agree that the report in question isn’t the the most reasoned/substantiated, but I do think it is representative.
Why are so many men in the industry unwilling to admit there’s a serious problem? If we came at the issue with anywhere near the amount of vigour we seem to do in being defensive, we might actually get somewhere.
Your attempt to discredit everything I say based on my gender, color and (presumed) sexual preference is an ad hominem attack. So spare me the condescension.
I wouldn’t call it an analysis of the gender studies field, it’s more of a summary. I stand by it though.
But I get it now. You didn’t actually read what I wrote.
Here it is in a shorter, more digestible, format:
1. Adland has its problems with culture
2. The research was bad
3. Bad research doesn’t mean the conclusion is wrong, it just means it hasn’t been demonstrated.
In other words, you agree with me, you just couldn’t help yourself, you had to make a racist and sexist comment before turning your brain on.
The research has been robust enough to see the author awarded a PhD from the University of Sydney. And it concurs with every other recent research study done on this topic. Feel free to go conduct your own university-supervised research if you think these findings are flawed. We await your conclusions.
Devils advocate – this article is obviously a summary of the full thesis. Did you read all 250 pages of the thesis before determining the research is bad, or are you just making a snap judgement without actually reading all of what he wrote?
I read the whole thing. Did you? Anything in particular you wanted to discuss?
Advocate, 3 – advocado and co, zero.
Hello devil’s advocate.
You have obviously never completed any postgraduate study or you would know what is involved in the writing of a 50,000 word thesis: the research which is exhaustive and the constant guidance by a supervisor.
To dismiss the extracts from Priday’s thesis as “bad research” is to miss the point that these interviews would constitute only a portion of what goes into the final analysis.
Had Friday embedded himself with one agency a month (12 in total) would then have made his time at each agency as useless and shallow as you suggest. However, two in-depth stints at agencies produce more than just a few quotes in a Umbrella story. Unfortunately, you got hooked like a hungry fish.
Before you dismiss Priday’s efforts as being just like bad advertising industry research, learn the difference between scholarly research and focus research.
Hello recent postgraduate. Congratulations with your degree and thank you for your question.
You’d be delighted to hear I do in fact have a post-graduate degree (masters, not phd).
You also wrongly assume that I haven’t read the actual report, which is a cheap trick to invalidate my points.
It’s interesting how defenders of the thesis assume the article must be shallow and that the report itself must contain so much substance (they’re also incapable, almost to the point of pathology, to offer any kind of specific arguments). You’d think you’d at least read it yourself to make sure that’s the case. Just because it contains more words than the article doesn’t make its conclusions any less shallow. Viewing the world through the lens of the canon of postmodern thinkers (or, rather feelers) does more for its wordcount than substance.
By your logic, we should accept as gospel every phd or thesis that comes out of a university simply by the virtue of alledgedly having adhered to a methodology guideline. Even when this methodology, as with most of what comes out of the humanities (as opposed to one of the STEM fields) doesn’t pass the most basic scientific principe of testing a hypothesis through experimentation?
Thesis from all fields are being challenged and disproved all over the world every single day. You see, truth and reality are works in progress. We arive at it by challenging each other’s theories, with reason and critical thinking.
Or didn’t they teach you that in your degree? In that case the academia is in even worse shape than I feared.
Hi Advocate,
ethnography is a well accepted method of testing hypotheses (in social sciences, and even some STEM fields). If, say, the hypotheses is that there are still deep-seated cultural and structural barriers preventing women from breaking the glass ceiling in the advertising workplace, one way to test this would be an ethnographic study. A researcher could immerse themselves in a number of agencies (in this case 4) and observe the culture. They could also conduct quantitative interviews to see whether there are any perspectives on women in the workplace which validate this hypothesis.
In this case, an observation of the culture (ethnography), and direct quotes from qualitative interviews suggest that there are indeed cultural issues which contribute to the glass ceiling, validating the hypothesis (in this study). The conclusions drawn from the results, such as whether these barriers are intentional or unintentional is another matter, but there’s nothing necessarily wrong with, or shallow about the methodology.
I know it’s a well accepted method, but because it is based on subjective interpretations and susceptible to human flaws and biases, it can lead to research of both high and low quality depending on the skills and integrity of the researcher. My point was that meeting criticism of such interpretations by implying a bullet proof methodology is dishonest.
And since I’ve rarely, if ever, seen less objective and sober language in a thesis it makes me question the entire report. Again, it doesn’t make the conclusion or findings wrong per se, it just means it has failed to make a good case for it.
I’m not taking sides, but your argumentative skills are 100%. High five.
@devilsavacodo Rekt
Yes, it is always good to call out where interpretations have been made based on limited insight that might contain bias. As another example, take someone who reads an article about a massive piece of work, like a thesis, and draws conclusions about the author’s knowledge or motives from a line or two in the article.
Actually you are very wrong, my husband is a tradie as are his colleagues and I grew up working in male dominated factories where nothing like this went on. They are forever shocked by articles and stories I have for them like this article. They think advertising guys […] are angry at girls or something. They think they need to exert their masculinity by putting women down they think it’s gutless, they see it in the same category as hitting a girl..their words not mine.
Note: This comment has been edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy
Lol, well said, Devil’s Advocate.
However – after 24 years in the industry, and 7 agencies before I started my own, I can pretty much say – yep sounds about right. I have worked with some brilliant men and some brilliant women. But I have never worked anywhere that wasn’t, ultimately, a boys’ club. There was nothing in this article that I didn’t recognise (and sometimes could see my own memories replicated perfectly). And think on this – how come account service and operations – which predominantly is where agency management comes from – is jammed to the rafters with talented hardworking women, but 80% of agency heads are men? From my nearly quarter century study, I’d have to agree with Priday’s findings.
“Tell the Devil’s Advocate in the room to go to hell.”
Legendary Adman – George Lois
And this is why there’s now so many brilliant, senior women working outside of agency. Most of us just got bored of the bullshit and moved onto greener pastures. Much, much greener pastures.
Well said.You can only deal with it for so long before you move on.
Couldn’t agree more. As a female on the cusp of hitting the roof in advertising (obviously this would be a different case if I was male), this article makes me feel sick and is the final push to get the eff out of Adland.
Obviously.
It must be nice to have a go-to scapegoat handy for when you tap the ceiling of your talents and abilities.
Learning the difference between roof and ceiling might be a start.
This article triggers you to leave adland? Really? Ha ha ha ha.
It’s obvious when you use ‘trigger’ in jest what kind of person you are. The white male jibe was made at you because you’re a textbook case of someone who believes their ciriticism of women is fair and humanist, when it’s clear that your aggressive pursuit of fairness spills over to mild misogyny.
No, Barney, my ridicule of a concept like triggering does not make it obvious that I’m a horrible person.
That, plus your groundless accusations of my misogyny are but cheap tricks to invalidate my arguments.
All the while you endorse sexist and racist jibes at white males, based on gross generelisations of our inherent sexism.
Using words like ‘obvious’ and ‘clear’ doesn’t make you right Barney. They may get your comrades nodding along, but you don’t fool me.
Nice try though. Go home and try to formulate an actual argument (based on reason, NOT emotion), then we can talk.
Hey Barney, you must have touched a sore bit with The Devil’s Advocate too because he used the same line with you as he did with me to dismiss your comments: “[Argument] …are but cheap tricks to invalidate my arguments.”
I love it when someone like The Devil’s Advocate takes to the High Road to defend his ridiculous assertions. He seems very sensitive to the arguments and opinions. I wonder what happened to him (possibly at the hands of a female creative?)
It’s a shame, but no surprise, that you haven’t got the guts to stick around and repond to my arguments. Instead you sneak off to look for your fallen comrades to sulk and comiserate your defeat.
What exactly did I say to you that is so ridiculous?
I don’t take the high road you little crybaby. I present arguments, which you meet with pathetic condescension. Any child over five is able to call your bluff.
And this is why there are also a lot of brilliant senior men working outside of agency-land.
We’re all bored of the bullshit and 20-something egos, plus the late hours and (believe it or not) sexist bullshit.
I wouldn’t want my daughter working in that kind of environment and as an example to her, I’ve moved on to better pastures.
On the money.
It’s unbelievable that there is still such a large gap between men and women in this industry. Being a woman manager, I encounter the “manspace” about once a week in my current role. It seems men aren’t able to censor themselves in a professional environment, yet women are downgraded for doing just that. It’s quite ironic given that my company is about putting culture first.
I know this industry has a high turnover rate, given this article, anyone know the female vs. male breakdown?
Advertising constitutes about 55% women.
So the numbers don’t really support your manspace narrative.
But I’m sure you’ll find a way to resolve the dissonance.
“Men don’t censor themselves, but women get downgraded for doing just that”? Care to elaborate on that gross generalisation?
With 55% women in agencies, it clearly isn’t about hiring more women. Something needs to change culturally, ie people need to do some f-ing HR training.
However.
The amount of crap I’ve seen in ad agencies that wouldn’t be allowed anywhere else is why a lot of people chose this industry. Fun, politically incorrect banter is just the start of it. Women included. Definitely included in that.
But, obviously, that has created existential troubles so we all need HR departments who function like banks and university apologists to come in and tell us how it’s done.
Goodbye strippers on boats (male and female), hello one-beer-at-lunch-policy Fridays.
Cue mass exodus of anyone interesting from the industry, hello a bunch of politically correct bankers that believe everyone deserves a prize.
If that’s what you want people, go for it.
You’re so touchy on this subject TDA! So you think the research is flawed, that’s your prerogative, but why are you trolling this article so persistently? One pithy comment was surely enough.
It just shows that it has clearly touched a nerve with you, just as it did for all of us. Only, it seems that most of us don’t need a PhD to confirm what is clear. There are a lot of women working in advertising, but the issue is that they don’t have the same opportunities that are available to men. This is not news, but it’s good that Mumbrella publishes this because it needs to be addressed.
What you refer to as trolling I call engaging in a dialogue. Trolling would be more like those who duck in for a little swing just to never return after I’ve refuted their arguments. Will that be you?
Yes it did hit a nerve with me, and thank you for pointing out exactly why that is. I believe your assumption that women don’t have the same opportunities as men to be fundamentally false. Interpreting reality through the lens of conspiracy theories does not make it so. But as long as nobody stops to question the underlying assumptions (white men = devil) we’ll get nowhere.
You’ll rather go on living in your little tribal echo chambers, infantilising women and demonising men and generate as much conflict as possible.
It is “separate” Tim.
Is the full thesis available? The conclusions he’s come to based on the anecdotal evidence in the article are a stretch at best.
“In other words, women are cheaper and better organised.” This is solely based on one off the cuff, uniformed comment of one ECD, this is not research. Anyone who has ever worked in an Agency knows that CDs have little to no understanding of how the Agency actually operates and makes money.
Hi Gregg,
The link in the fourth paragraph will take you to the full thesis.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
As a 40 year old mother of two toddlers and currently studying advertising, this research makes me feel like I’m wasting my time. May as well go back to mining and construction… oh wait.
you are not wasting your time.
while more progress can and will be made, there are more female leaders in our industry than ever before at MD, HoP and CSD level and these women will continue to rise to CEO and Chairman (person) levels.
Creative has sadly fallen way behind and this needs to change.
stick at it
Well they are missing out. The few women I know in creative are brilliant. Dedicated, truly care about the work, we are now mostly the bread winners at home and love what we do. These suits do work hard and late and are also fabulous. What can I say these big agencies with shallow misogynistic attitudes are the ones missing out. These attitudes is exactly why they are failing at being great like they used to…I call them the big trees with shallow roots. They are on their way down so best not be around when they do, hey we’ll flourish elsewhere thanks – those attitudes is what’s stunts the creativity your time and work is best spent hanging around good guys – keep up the good work lady peeps.
Fascinating, timely and sadly, tallies with everything I have observed across many agencies. Although it manifests as gender bias, it’s sociopathic narcissism, which is too often rewarded in creatives who lack humility and empathy. When those ugly traits are also in their ultimate reports – ECDs, CEOs etc – endemic, intergenerational ugliness results.
There’s too much indulgence for “baby men” – kidults who expect maternal support from women to clean up their mess, literally and metaphorically. Priday’s “arrogant male hipsters being humoured by female account execs”, is searingly accurate. However it’s not always male instigated – I have also seen female leaders crush talented women for no reason. They’ve reached the top and now they’re kicking-out the ladder behind them. Misogynistic women shouldn’t get a free pass either. While all these bad behaviours are rewarded, they will continue. If they’re punished, they will drive-out the trash, enabling an agency to reinvent. Ultimately, it comes down to hiring practices, which in agencies are universally hopeless and amateurish. They delegate to recruiters, who are about as sophisticated as Tinder. Yes, work on internal culture, but when you fix the hiring processes, you can stop the rot.
You make some good points.
Advertising is full of men and women who treat other men and women badly. Advertising is competitive, full of egos, late nights, pressure, short-termism etc. Advertising is not a nice industry. Many people are not nice.
What frustrates me is that such a complex issue is always hijacked by a political agenda and reduced to and spun into a gender issue to confirm the feminist narrative of “white men have privilege, are inherently evil and use their inherited, unearned power to oppress women and everyone else”
I agree totally.
I heard a term recently for these misogynistic women that made sense. “Highlander syndrome” as in “There can be only one”. When some women see how few opportunities women are given to succeed, they become so insecure as to become hostile to competitors. Still, it’s a function of the male-dominated landscape. Fixing that is still the key to changing behaviour across the board.
Just a quick one for fairness.
In 2013, I was one of the interviewees at M&C.
I was interviewed about three times. Each interview was about 20 minutes to half an hour.
That’s about an hour and a half of tape containing many positive comments about the agency and its hiring practices, I notice that I’m quoted twice. Both comments out of context, negative, and designed to back up the point of the thesis.
This is a highly unfair article. Hours of material have been scoured to find only the comments and actions that defend the point of the argument (I did exactly the same with my thesis!)
It’s a bit of a beatup and quite unfair.
This thesis is biased by its very nature and should be treated as such as opposed to being a headline news article that’s to be honest, is part of an ongoing sexism campaign.
I’m very proud of M&C, how it works, how it hires.
So before commenting, realise what you’re commenting ON.
@Interviewee.
Thank you for clarifying that and for giving us a peak into the mind of dishonest academics. It’s a discgrace and you have my sympathies, it must be extremely frustrating to be used in this way.
As I wrote above, those were my suspicions. The entire article is dripping with bias, both from the researcher and journalist.
Where is the critical comments Miranda?
Based on the above comment, I expect you will request the entire research material from the researcher and write some sort of follow-up.
I’d say it’d be a bit of a scoop. A bit like revealing scam in Cannes.
Hi guys, have you read the research (linked above)? The report’s original author spent much more of his career as a creative than as an academic. From the report:
“I have spent my career between 1965-2015 in advertising and transnational agencies and for the most part in the role of creative director. So, yes, I am the stereotypical advertising
white male.
Through this study I hope to critique the relationship between creativity and masculinity in the transnational advertising industry. I was interested to return as a researcher to a creative workplace that I remember as generally inclusive and
supportive but which, on reflection, clearly favoured men.”
I think we can all agree things weren’t great in 1965, nor was it perfect in the following decades. There’s been great progress over the last decade, and that’s what’s relevant. Anecdotes from the 60s are just misleading.
@The devil’s advocate
Care to expand on some of the ‘great progress over the last decade’ ???
@M
I’m a bit tired of people just throwing out challenges only to never return to the conversation if I prove them wrong. As if each, simply by having been raised, constitute a serious challenge to the core of my arguments.
It’s like throwing a deck of cards on the wall and hoping one sticks.
One case in point is to take a look at your average commercial break where so many major brands convey a worldview in line with the virtues of tolerance, equality and diversity, regardless of relevance to the brand. It’s corporate virtue signalling driven by the political agenda of highly liberal employees of agencies and clients. For better and worse.
These places, like American universities, which are the centre of this whole debate, are among the most tolerant places in the history of the world. So if there’s not perfect parity, here’s a suggestion: widen your search for explanations outside the racist and sexist conclusion you’ve all made about how white, straight men are evil by virtue of their colour and gender.
Other than that, do your own damn research and show there has not been progress.
hi interviewee I reckon you should listen to your own advice.
Yes, but you still said what you said. It doesn’t matter if it was in 1 minute, 10 minutes or 2 hours.
The fact you can’t seem to comprehend the context of the overall study nor the critical analysis within it, suggests you have been well represented in the thesis.
This ‘research’ is laughable when you look at the methodology. Good for a few clicks though.
Good enough to get the author a PhD from the University of Sydney.
That does not mean jack and you along with everyone else here knows it.
Sorry, where is your phd? Oh you don’t have one? Only a pseudonym to hide behind and a bad attitude, hey. I think that alone explains enough.
That settles it then, does it? The ease and willingness with which you defer to authority is actually quite frightening. Ever stopped to contemplate what your role might’ve been during a totalitarian regime? Of course you haven’t. My bet is right up there at the top of the foodchain.
Calm down please sir. I’m really worried about how hysterical you’re getting. You’ll get your points across more successfully if you can be less shrill and keep your emotions in check.
Ok boss. I’ll just sit here quietly on the edge of my seat, waiting for you to either repond to one of my points or deliver one of your own.
Why do you think the methodology is laughable? It follows standard principles for ethnographic research and that research method is pretty standard both in academia and in our industry… is it only a valid research method when it works in your favour then?
I think it is unfair that you have used real names within this article. I was able to quickly identify specific colleagues. Not good.
Hi Anon,
According to the author (see page 208 of the thesis), the only real names used in the thesis are those of the local co-founders of M&C Saatchi Tom Dery and Tom McFarlane.
Although certain people were readily identifiable to us, we chose not to use their real names in this article.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Clearly, the clicks are best we have men in adland are pigs.
What would be great in 2017 is to have a more enlightened approach.
Are there any good news stories out there?
Or do we have to muck rake to kick off the year with this continual misanderisitic approach?
Who else is going to air such issues and generate coverage that can help make a difference?
Campaign Brief – Wouldn’t want to upset the Legendary Lunch guests. Unless M&C issue a press release, this issue won’t get coverage over on CB.
AdNews – Does anyone read Adnews? It doesn’t subscribe to a circulation audit, so probably not. It’s reception area fodder.
B&T – Perhaps if there was an award for misogyny at the B&T Awards, it might garner some coverage, but it’d all be forgotten a day later.
The Australian – Too focused on Media and the Murdoch’s to notice.
Sad that it takes a study conducted by a man to illicit a reaction in this area. None of this is news to any woman in this business…
God, every single senior I’ve ever met in advertising is such a smug bastard that thinks they are saving the world. ‘But we did so much more than make a gorilla play some drums… we made people happy’
As white, 30-something male on the production side of things that often loosely deals with these people, all I can say is I feel for the women that end up working for and with these shmohawks.
Here here Will F. Thanks for choosing to see reality and not getting uppity, thinking the author is out to attack the entire male sex!
Tim, I wouldn’t take the slightest notice of any of these remarks made by people unwilling to identify themselves by their full names.
Don’t know why you do, particularly on subjects like this.
Because Alan, the comments are not validated by the writers’ identity but by their content. They are no more or less true as a result of the writer’s name and in some cases the writers would be disadvantaged by disclosing their identity.
Grossly wrong Groucho. What you don’t seem to grasp is that people are expressing an opinion not a fact, as a result facts can be validated, however opinions are more useful when they are informed. As an example, your own comment above, you cite authoritatively that content not effects validity. However this is your opinion, and you have it even though I am guessing you aren’t practising professionally in the field of psychology or logic. But there are numerous opinionated pricks out there.
@Nope I would love to respond to your comment but I can’t work out what you are saying. Assume though that post grad Psych might reassure you. I do though understand why you have commented anonymously.
Click-bait for cash, mate. Pure and simple. It would be the death of their business model if they got rid of anonymous comments.
Anonymous or not, just because you put your name to a comment doesn’t mean you don’t have your own agenda when commenting. How is it you can dismiss months of academic research, by a experienced industry veteran, that raises well-documented issues and evidences real conversations as nothing more than clickbait? I find that repugnant and unprofessional, not the anonymous commenters here. As someone who touts themselves as a planning director, one would expect you’d challenge the research rather than simply write the headline off. It’s worth noting the thesis author hasn’t intervened in the debate. Are you accusing him of benefiting from the clickbait too? Is the headline an injustice to the thesis findings? Not entirely sure what your actual issue is here Tom.
I have a great time working in advertising! So far have worked with great guys! (over 10 years).
Might buy Lotto ticket!
Perhaps maturity is to blame?
This article and the comments are fascinating and yes as ‘female’ I have witnessed most of the behaviour described. My additional observation is that sexism in advertising is more often driven by key individuals (male or female) not agencies. In the 90’s I was MD of business units at McCann’s and Y&R and Sir Martin was just as interested in my P&L as my male counterparts. The CEO’s I worked with during that era were perhaps a tad older and more mature than some of today’s. Respect and self-actualisation is powerful talent manager and worth getting older for.
Sorry readers clicked to quick! – happy to stand by my comments & be named. Gill
This article and the comments are brilliant, what great rallies of conversation.
Yes, I (female) have witnessed some of the behaviours described. However, my observation is that sexism in advertising is driven by individuals (male or female) and not agency brands. In the 90’s I was MD of business units at McCann’s and Y&R and Sir Martin was just as interested in my P&L as my male counterparts. The CEO’s I worked with during that era were perhaps more mature than some of today’s (under 40s) – they had learnt that respect and self- actualisation is powerful and worth getting older for.
Any great creatives who feel they aren’t getting heard are welcome to align with HYLAND and we can pitch them to the market together.
Ricki I want you to know that your highlander syndrome definition is also a generalisation and doesn’t represent all women psyche – from the Hylander.
No of course not, which is why I said “some women”. But they do exist and they are also victims of the limited opportunities offered to women.
All people in advertising are wankers. Male or female. As are all people who are in the peripheral industries to advertising, including industry press. So to expect anyone to play nicely or behave is laughable.
We’re all wankers. The only difference is, some of us realise that.
I am a female creative and I had a visceral reaction to this article. I literally felt my heart rate quicken because this rings so true. I have been lucky and most of my agency experience has been good but when I did encounter it late in my career it was shocking. For example I was often shut down and talked over to have a male colleague voice the same idea to approval, in the very same meeting. It was like arriving in a hostile land where women are seen and not heard or are made to walk 10 paces behind a man, a place where rituals and behaviour are so embedded that men are not even aware of what they are doing. I moved on quickly from this role and my biggest regret is not being honest about why I left …. because I didn’t want to make trouble …. because I am A WOMAN IN A MAN’S WORLD.
Sounds frightening, was this in the 1960’s?
I think the key point you make is that majority of your experience has been good. The same way that enormous media coverage of a plane crashes or shark attack makes us worry about it to an irrational degree, by focusing on individual bad experiences (and haven’t we all had those!?) we forget that the most people are nice most of the time.
First of all you choose to make this about gender as opposed to a bad individual. You also choose to let the one bad experiences among many good ones define your experience as a whole.
I think a certain researcher has just put up his hand for a keynote at mumbrella360.
And if agencies were clever they would invite him in to speak to their agencies. He’s got better insights than most about agency blind spots.
I’d love to hear more.
I’m delighted to see that the conversation is (finally!!) out in the open. Let me start by saying cheers to that. As a female the outcome of this research is no new news to me. If anybody doubts the validation of its results just walk in to any ad agency, wherever, whenever, and observe. You’ll jump to the same conclusion in a heartbeat. It’s not about which agency, or which leadership, it’s a wider industry issue and we all should have the balls to acknowledge it. Don’t pretend it’s not there, the ad industry is a middle aged (white) men dominated industry and we should all work towards a more diverse work culture. For the minorities out there, for the women out there, for the men, and for fuck sake for the creative work that we deliver to the world. Shouldn’t we as an innovative industry lead by example?
Some of the reactions are so defensive and narrow minded. To those men who call all this BS, I’d like to say, common now mate. Acknowledge the position that your in, there is no shame in doing that. But there is a shame in not understanding your own position in the world. The advantages it brings you, and the disadvantages that come with it.
To the woman out there I’d like to say: Good one you for staying in an industry that you love. It takes a big mouth and a lot of courage to do so and I hope our paths will cross during our careers. I would be delighted to meet you and to learn from you.
Would be great if both men and women can work towards a better working environment together, instead of playing the denial game.
It’s 2017, its time.
First of all, if you’ve read anything at all the last five-eight years, you’d noticed we’ve hardly talked about anything else. But welcome to the party.
Secondly, saying that advertising is dominated by middle-aged men is cliche that may have been true in the 60s. Today there’s hardly a person over 40 left, and approx 55% of all employees are women.
So you’re starting off by sounding slightly biased or misinformed.
Other than that, you’ve clearly bought into every single talking-point of feminist ideology, so sorting that out would take some sort of exorcism, which is beyond the scope of a humble post. I’m afraid you’re beyond reason. But good luck with that, I’m sure it makes you feel empowered. At least you’re not alone.
Hi Devil (I would suggest you remove advocate from your name…),
After over 5 years experience in the business I have a right to speak up, so I suggest you don’t belittle me or woman in general. Such a shame.
Let me know when you have grown up and are ready to have a normal conversation on the topic.
I don’t have time for this.
Remove my…? Oh wait, I get it now, I’m the devil. And they say women can’t be creative.
Nobody said you don’t have a right to speak up. That’s your own convenient interpretation of my remarks, which allows you not having to deal with what’s actually being said. I made you feel bad, so you sulk and make me into the bad guy.
I don’t belittle women at all, feminists perhaps, but not all feminists are women and not all women are feminists.
Of course you have time for this, women work much shorter hours than men.
Strike two!
I know right? Must be a scary thought for you that woman are actually capable of a lot of things. Even creativity.
I hope you’ll find time to reflect on your behavior later in life. You’re clearly not ready.
I hope you have the ability to have an open mind some day.
Ciao for now Diablo. This convo is over. Strike three, your out.
Apologies, I forgot feminists have a sense of humour that belongs on the far end of the autism spectrum.
As opposed to you, I believe women are highly capable. Which is why I don’t patronise and infantilise them by claiming they are victims.
Seems your math skills are on par with your sense of humour. When I have two strikes, you don’t get to claim the third. Or did you just score an own-goal?
Ciao darling
“I don’t belittle women at all, feminists perhaps”. What a charmer you are. Your parents must be so very proud.
I wonder if the people who were interviewed by this academic knew they would later be quoted in the advertising trade press? Yes, the names have been changed but if there really are so few women in creative departments, it will be very easy to work out who the quotes are from. Potentially career-damaging, no?
Wow.
Creative land is up Shyte Creek without a paddle based on all these articles and the ensuing mayhem.
Ad tech seems to have it better, perhaps because the ad tech ‘world’ is in its infancy and therefore hasn’t adapted the ways of old?
Can creative world ctrl Z a few blokes and duplicate some layers of double X chromosomes.
I tell you what I’d like to see?
More females in construction with hands on tools.
Too many being lolly pop ladies, not utilising their entire skillet and getting in trenches with men.
“Entire Skillet”
Unfortunate typo there …
The photo you use from the M&C website doesn’t show any of the half dozen women in senior leadership positions from the agency (which are conveniently cropped out but sit on the same page).
I find that quite insulting. Especially for the women that hold those positions and are brilliant at what they do.
Also, in my opinion, one of the best CDs at M&C is female.
A lot has changed in the last few years and will continue to.
It seems the thing that hasn’t changed is Mumbrella’s openly biased click bait journalism.
How about you set up a page on your site for female creatives/teams to display their portfolios?
Start the year on a positive note by doing something that will promote change.
Hi “Happy 2017”,
They weren’t cropped out.
That was exactly how the full page looked (when viewed on desktop via the Chrome browser.)
After your note, I also jumped onto the site via my phone. When you visit the mobile version, there’s a navigation arrow which shows there are more people to be viewed. That isn’t there on the Chrome version of the site – you can only see the three people.
It’s a glitch that’s probably worth fixing (I’m assuming you work at the agency to have that level of detailed knowledge on the page in question).
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Thanks ‘Happy 2017’ for the shout out. Yes there is a gender imbalance in senior creative roles – everyone in the industry is acutely aware of that and has been for quite some time. As one of the CD’s that sits at the ‘Last Supper’ table, when I read your article I felt like not only does it not matter that I exist, it’s actually an inconvenience to the Mumbrella machine or agency hating clickbait. It’s essential to have discussion around this topic but not just a vitriolic hate fest. Where are the ideas about how to be more nurturing of female creative talent. I am a believer in a fair go for all, not a fairer go for women. The challenge is to get the balance right. We work in a vibrant and brilliant industry, so let’s not scare any talent away. Let’s actually talk about what is really happening in agencies today, not drag something up from a couple of years ago. This year, can we all try to find better ways to solve problems rather than point anonymous fingers at great agencies who are actually trying to make genuine headway on this important issue.
Well said Sharon.
Deeply unsurprised to hear the increasingly female client base being described as “Russian Dolls”. These twats aren’t nearly as good at hiding their disdain as they think they are. Gents, have you ever considered that your attitudes are part of the reason we’re increasingly punting money to trade and squeezing you in retainer negotiations? It’s not just the crap, unoriginal work we’re getting back (due in part to boring, undiversified, cookie-cutter creative teams), it’s the fact we’re well aware of your true feelings. And trust us, the feeling is more than mutual. Thank god for the lovely, efficient suits. They’re the only ones keeping the creaking agency model afloat.
Not that the clients don’t have some responsibility in all of this ourselves. We need to stop getting wowed by slick pitch teams and give the up and coming modular agencies a chance. They’re cheaper, set up for the 2017 media environment and they can’t possibly give us duller creative.
you do also need to stop giving 22yr olds the power of veto on major creative campaigns
Not that I’ve ever seen a 22 year old given the power to veto a major creative campaign in my 20 year career but if you’re responding to a significant creative brief and the only person you have in the room is a 22 year old assistant brand manager, you have an issue with your client/agency relationship and should probably call time on the meeting and sort that out before presenting dozens of hours of senior work.
Yawn. Liberal guilt and selection bias.
This research was undertaken in 2014/15 when the question of gender balance in creative departments was becoming a hot topic.At that time,apparently,most agencies demurred at the prospect of Mr Priday coming ‘inside’.Both McCann and M&cSaatchi were prepared to open their doors.For not shirking the issue they are pilloried,when they should be thanked.
We are a perverse lot.
this is a great point that hasn’t been mentioned in the thousands of rants above (on both sides)
So now the “About” screen on M&C Saatchi has a female. Whoop whoop. http://mcsaatchi.com.au/about/
Congratulations Nathalie Brady!
Did Mumbrella use an old image or are M&C playing catch up?
Strikes me that HR (outside of pure recruiting) only entered agency land 5 years back. We have decades of bad practice to unravel. Let’s not beat each other up. Rather let’s actively find the best talent based on merit and give it every opportunity to float to the top, irrespective of gender.
Hi “confused but optimistic”.
That screenshot was taken on Sunday, with the addition of Nathalie Brady taking place at some point on Monday. I couldn’t say if it was before or after the story was published at 9am but you may form your own opinion.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
That’s just not true. The photos of all those women have not been recently added. And there are 5 of them. Use your shitty snoop tool and back check the page instead of implying it’s been changed.
Fuck me Tim; never let the truth get in the way of a good story hey.
Hi “False”,
Repeating some of my answer from elsewhere in this conversation for clarity.
This is a link to how the M&C Saatchi site looked at Sunday night. Checking my metadata, the screenshot was taken at exactly 5.30pm: https://staging.mumbrella.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/mc-saatchi-website.png
It was taken on a desktop Chrome browser. It shows exactly what’s possible to see when anybody lands on the page.
It featured five men.
As you’ll see from the screenshot, there is no obvious navigation to any other people hidden on either side of that page.
However, if you look at the same site on mobile (which I have done since), there are left and right arrows on the mobile site which indicate you can navigate to see other people.
Clearly that’s a shortcoming in the navigation on the site’s desktop version.
While you’ve worded it carefully to say that the pictures have not been recently added, they were hidden to desktop browsers.
And what is irrefutable is that since that screen shot was taken (and almost certainly since this story appeared), the order of the staff has been reprioritised to place Nathalie Brady within the group of five people who are visible on the page without scrolling sideways. (I see that ECD Michael Canning has been shuffled out of view to make way for Nathalie.)
Given your detailed knowledge of the site and the images that were hidden, I’m assuming you work at the agency. My feedback as a user is that it’s worth adding some navigation if you’d like desktop users to look at the other staff who are hidden.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Random paragraph from the actual report:
“When creative and account service discuss and review their ideas they move away from their desks and into various chill-out zones. Here, the men drape themselves over the seats or stretch out on the sofas while the women sit upright, alert and attentive. The men get up and wander about, but the women remain at their computers and only leave for a specific purpose. In this way the men mark their territory, coming across as owner-occupiers of the creative space, asserting their power advantage over the women who present as ‘other’ and accepted as visitors. There is a nervous and ongoing tension in the agency that signals the determination and intensity of the management and senior staff to rebuild their agency”
For those of you who are usually so sensitive to biases in their opponents, it should be pretty clear that this is not science, it’s one man’s subjective and thus biased, interpretation of reality.
Actually, this is a viable academic method of inquiry known ethnographic research.
Unfortunately, hard science (maths, physics, etc) cannot contain the human experience as a narrative.
I remember this guy. I was freelancing at one of the agencies mentioned at the time. He said he was making a documentary on advertising and “the creative process”, and sat in on briefings, etc. He also had private chats with quite a few of us. But rather than be annoyed at this deception, I am actually quite impressed. He was a painfully mild mannered fellow, and overly polite. So bravo to you sir.
If he’d been honest about the intent of the study, nobody would have let him in. I’ve worked at just about every network agency in Sydney now and it’s hard to argue with the bulk of what he’s saying. And if you disagree, then talk to any female creative. Surely they’re not all just “bleeding heart feminists”.
The way I see it is, advertising used to be a lot more like sales. And sales is an industry that remains dominated by men. Perhaps masculine traits are more persuasive when it comes to sales, I don’t know. So the fact that the sales aspect has been taken out of account service sort of removes the need for those masculine traits, which explains why more and more women occupy roles there now. These days it’s more about relationships and organisation.
But even in creative, it’s still about sales. Having a good idea has never been enough. If you can’t sell it to your CD, your ECD and eventually your client, then there’s literally no point in having it. This means creatives must also harness masculine sales traits – even if you’re a woman – to be successful.
Is it a deliberate agenda? I don’t think so. It’s not worth the PR fallout. For the networks it’s all about money. The less ideas that get sold, the less money they make. And if sales results skew towards more masculine personality traits, then masculine personalities will continue to prevail.
I know there’s a problem. But I think it’s bigger than ‘the ad industry is misogynistic’. All that happens when you say that, is agencies get scared and hire women for the sake of it. And according to female creatives who were told to their face that they’d been hired for that reason, I understand how crap that would feel.
I’m sure many people won’t agree with me, but that’s how I feel about it.
@devils advocate
55% females in leadership or the support and account roles? I don’t deny there’s been progress and I am taking the research with a grain of salt but your comments imply there is nothing left to do in our industry? Surely that’s not what you think.
The oh so original look of the entire bearded creative department dressed in round glasses makes me feel like punching people.
My favourite comment so far. Indeed a whole department full of unoriginals trying to be original. I was in the industry for 20 years (late 90s to recently) in 5 different countries, 3 different agency brands belonging to the two biggest agency networks (WPP and Omnicom) and it’s one massive boys club. Not just in creative departments either. I relate to everything in the article. People like the devils own Trump-et – or whatever he is calling himself – can shout all they want about a poor piece of research or cite stats from other sources but I can bring in a hundred women who will all say the same thing: a sweaty horrible drunken learing sexist boys (tho mostly now over 50) club. And yes mostly white. The nicer, younger ones don’t get very far or get fed up and go off and use their talents to set-up their own start-ups. It’s an industry losing it’s talent in droves. To quote more or less: Yes, women can get to the top but they will never be equal.” Yep, true from what I’ve seen.
It’s a shame he only picked up the ‘M-Z’ Yellow Pages and went to the first two names in that book.
If he had have gone to an agency starting with a ‘D’, he would have seen a very strong female MD, who also happens to be gay but that’s besides the point, she rocks. As well, he would have seen every Group Account Director is a woman (with a few somewhat emasculated male subordinates), the head of planning, head of operations, head of PR and head of TV were all women too and the men were very much in the minority, given that it is a very ‘suit-led’ agency. To mansplain, that means the suits hold the final say on the creative, not the creative directors, aka the chicks hold the real power.
If he had have gone to an agency starting with a ‘G’, he would have seen formidable leadership from another extremely talented and respected woman. An agency starting with a ‘B’, an incredibly influential and inspirational head of planning who has a massive say in that agency’s culture.
I’m not for one second saying that it’s perfect, however the balance seems to be there in most agencies I’ve worked at. If anything, it’s tipped slightly in the women’s favour.
To quote the biggest asshole of a man I’ve ever met, ‘Empty your pockets of excuses’. I hated that advice when I heard it, because it bit hard, but I did so much better because of it.
In my experience, agencies promote and reward people. Not sexes, not religions, not cop-outs. Yes, I’ve been looked over many, many times in favour of the bosses coke-snorting buddy. Yes, I’ve seen talented women looked over in favour of the same kind of person. It happens, you learn, you adapt, you win. Maybe.
I hope this conversation doesn’t have to happen by the end of this year, and I look forward to getting back to ‘s/he’s such an amazing thinker with fantastic ideas’ rather than it being a conversation about beards and rolled up pants vs granny glasses and floral skirts.
We’re so much better than this, people!
This is a pretty thought provoking piece of research, although pretty uncomfortable to read. I’ve only ever worked client side but during many years of sitting through briefings, pitches and campaign planning, I was always floored that the majority of agencies would rock in and present and prep concepts with little or zero creative representation from women – even for a brief solely targeting women.
It’s hard to get my head around why women are heralded so often in life as such creative and emotional beings, frequently called out over men for their ability to communicate, work through stages of emotion and share and articulate feelings – all perfect foundations for successful creatives – yet male creatives outnumber women and the big agencies still can’t claim gender balance or equal opportunities for promotion and advancement.
I’ve moved on from the corporate scene since having kids and am now involved in a startup tackling solutions for changing the employment landscape in Australia. For many of the reasons listed here and referenced in some of the comments, we are targeting the advertising industry as the test bed.
Optimistic perhaps, but I really hope that by the time my little boys are coming out of school and starting their lives in the working world, articles like this are truly a thing of the past that ‘mum used to talk about that kind of stuff happening when she used to work’ !
“It’s hard to get my head around why women are heralded so often in life as such creative and emotional beings, frequently called out over men for their ability to communicate, work through stages of emotion and share and articulate feelings – all perfect foundations for successful creatives”
Oh, and do you think only females are capable of multitasking?
F-off. Not all women, certainly not all men.
No surprise you missed the point of the comment entirely. No, not all women and yes certainly men too yet the stats don’t lie – women can’t crack into creative positions at senior levels at the same rate as men and it’s not because of a lack of talent or suitability to the role. So perhaps you could offer some articulate counter to that point and why this may be the case rather than reverting to a pointless and derogatory f-off under the guise of a stupid alias name.
Exhausting that it still goes on. I respect that the first step to solve a problem is to measure it. Measurement alone can improve results by 10% alone.
Sadly, our industry doesn’t know how to fix it. We can’t use the same people that created the problem to fix the problem. I’m a business coach, and from what I know people can’t fix something they don’t have experience to do. We need to model successful industries and successful businesses and start some action to resolve this finally.
Generalising here, but the only women who complain in this industry are those who can’t get along with men.
Read: Women who went to all-girl private schools.
Get more public school women (and men) into agencies. That’s how you get real diversity. Over 90% of Australians are publicly educated, yet you’ll find over 90% of ad agencies are stocked with the same old private school hogwash – both male and female.
Stocking a creative department with women who spent their entire lives growing up near Pymble / Camberwell will not make it any more diverse.
Speaking from experience.
It sounds like what you’re saying here is that women won’t bend to your will, and be “nice” when you demand them to be and you don’t like it.
Too bad.
To “Think with your brain for a minute”: did you get spanked really, really hard by your female teacher or some other woman when you were a little boy in school? Did private school girls tease the hell out of your curly hair? You do sound like someone with a (private school) axe to grind.
@Oh Dear
No, but it’s a fact that people who went to same sex schools have a lot of problems adjusting to male or female opinions when they get out into the real world.
@Ricki
Don’t be a douche. What I’m saying is, people who have spent their formative years around a single sex are unlikely to want to co-operate with the opposite sex once they’re in the real world.
Once again you have shown that there is nothing you won’t do for a click. Tim, you’re a cunt.
A note that under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy we wouldn’t usually publish comments using this terminology.
But I’m making the choice to publish this as I think it does say something about where some people involved in this debate are coming from.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Excellent decision, keep it up Tim & Team.
regardless of creative editing…
these agencies must be
a. calling their lawyers in quick time
b. looking for whoever signed away their rep
#popcorn
Wow, this has certainly sprung a conversation that I believe needs to be had. I’ve been a woman in advertising for over 20 years and it’s certainly a ‘manspace’. HOWEVER, my experience in life generally has shown me that the behaviour throughout the agency is dictated from the top down. I believe it’s also about educating women to have more confidence to say ‘that’s not okay’, but that’s such a larger conversation which starts way back in life and in our culture. I’ve spoken to many colleagues about how to change the culture in advertising agencies but the issue is that there is a deep down belief that it shouldn’t and/or can’t. The ‘Men’s Club’ was hard and being one of the first female ad directors was a challenge. I was not male and couldn’t do the banter that they so liked on a shoot. Only the guys who had true confidence in themselves and wanted what was best for the job, allowed me to create some great projects together. So again, standing in my own power gave me the ability to not be a victim and choose to put up with it, or not. Unfortunately that may mean losing your job because today fear is the killer of so many agency cultures. I remember being in a meeting, I was freelance at this stage and I listened to a client speak so badly to a young female account service that I couldn’t put up with it and I challenged him in a very professional manner. I had 3 execs come down at me afterwards like a tonne of bricks and my response was ‘I don’t care who they are, no-one deserves to be spoken to like that’. They lost the account in the end, but I know it was only because client’s can smell fear and so if agencies backed their employees more, it wouldn’t be such a pressure for everyone. Sorry I got a bit off track, but I guess what I’m saying is that the gender equality is an issue everywhere and change comes from individuals gaining strength and the understanding to choose what is okay and what is not. I know some great people and some nasty ones, both men and women. It’s actually about how ‘creatives’ are given a God like status, enabling them to behave in ways that is just not okay. I don’t care who you are, basic common kindness and respect should be number one.
I could say that Mumbrella’s absolute obsession with raising the sexism argument whenever they can has effectively put off more women from entering an industry that seems to desperately need them.
But that would be logical.
And this is Daily Mail fury bait.
So keep rattling the stick Mumbrella.
You should offer this researcher a place at your conference. I’m sure between him, Bec Brideson and Cindy Gallop you could effectively make advertising 100% female free by 2018.
Watch adverts on television, or look at print ad’s in magazines. Women are still in the kitchen, girls are still being dressed in pink. Are you truly so socially conditioned that you are blind to the evident subordination of women, in and out of creative departments?
would you also agree that men (and particularly husbands) are laughed at/denigrated/made fun of in commercials significantly more than women. the ‘idiot/lazy/made decision making husband’ seems to be the butt of plenty of jokes within the household and female targetted sector
If you were to add up the sheer volume of sexist advertising of women, versus sexist advertising of men, there is simply no contest. Women win that dubious contest hands down, yes even in 2017.
Having said that, the trend of ads to depict men / husbands as stupid and boof-headed are lazy and to my mind, unrepresentative of the men I know.
Has it occurred to you @fleshpeddler that the majority of those ads are written by men? When women represent a tiny percentage of CD and ECD roles, who do you think should be held accountable for ensuring men AND women get fair representation in the advertising this industry creates?
If there’s an ad with a ‘stupid’ woman in there, it gets complained about. An ad with a stupid husband / male, laughed at.
The ‘women in the kitchen’ thing comes from clients and believe it or not, research. I tried to change that a few times, showing the husband cooking. Bombed in research. Why? Because women didn’t want an ad that portrayed them as a bad housewife. Quote from the research company.
This should never be a male vs female discussion, it should be about what’s fair.
There is a lot that isn’t fair on both sides, yet men for the most part agree to your face then comment in private. This is how Trump gets elected. This is how Brexit happens. Because you call people stupid and invalidate their legitimate feelings, and you make enemies rather than friends. This is why feminism will not work. They’re not reaching out to men to help, to support, to work together. They’re throwing men under the bus and expecting them to just get out of the way.
Yes, I would totally agree. Neither stereotypes should exist. Eradicating the stereotypes will not help to sell products though will it… Or will it…? Who knows? I know that I am conscious, as are many others on this thread and in society and we can help to shade others from the swill that is splatted out of creative departments in order to flog products, without giving a hoot about the fallout of their actions.
Let me put the positive spin on that.
An entire new industry is created, of coaches, conferences, niche news media, consultants, twitter bullies and gender specialists, all of whose job it is to help agencis hire women who don’t want to work there.
They’re actually quite ingenious the way they create more work for themselves while at the same time demonstrating their moral superiority to the rest of us proles.
A will to power indeed.
This a bonerfide swordfight.
Very ugly.
(I’m male, 40’s, btw)
You make a great observation about many of the other agencies in town and congrats to you and them. However, you left a few letters out of your phone-book Alphabet of Hope – CD & ECD. i think that’s the point of this story?
So in your opinion, the agency where I mentioned a female is the head of every department except the creative department (all 6 or 7?) is still not enough?
Should women be running everything? Including the creative department? Sure, go right ahead, my apologies that’s very unfair of the men to be wanting to run one department out of the other 6 or 7.
Sorry Barb, can I get you a coffee while you do the important stuff?
Have to say after 20 years working in London (and seeing the business change so much) – I’ve never cared whether someone is male or female – just if they’re genuinely nice and good at their job. Don’t think you can lump all females in advertising together as hard done by though. There’s probably the same proportion of females who can be equally unpleasant as the worst man-child beardy hipster – just in different ways. Unprofessionalism isn’t a gender issue.
Great article and no surprise there is a lot of interest here in the comments.
The title could read: ‘Society subordinates women’. Just watch the adverts on television that these ‘creative departments’ design: girls play with dolls and wear pink. Boys play with trucks and wear blue.
– Perhaps the creative department is actually the most important department of any business to change and to equalize, in order for society to treat women on the same level as men..?
I am having a baby, whether it be boy or girl they will not be getting smashed by adverts, which are stereotyped, because I am conscious I guess..? Yes, the creative department has a duty, not only to each other in the department, but to our society.
@Ricki
Re women being stereotyped more than men. How can make such a bombastic statement about such a complex issue?
I take it you don’t just base it on your own feelings? You strike me as having too much self-awareness not to take such things as selective and confirmation biases into account when conducting your research.
So if it’s a problem with advertising in general, why the insistance on making it a gender issue, about men oppressing women? Why is it always about sexism instead of stereotyping?
Stereotypes are actually quite useful in advertising. Haven’t you noticed that advertising does it absolute best to reflect real life? If you work in advertising, you should know how these come about: research combined with total risk averseness as clients insist they target the absolute average, middle-of-the-road customer. If 49% of your female customers don’t cook and clean, they’ll still target the majority who does by featuring a cooking, cleaning woman. Then they’ll go home and complain about stereotypes in advertising.
We’re salespeople, not radical feminist activists.
Come on Ricki, you’re better than this.
@ Steph
I submitted a comment to your question yesterday, but it was never published. Trying again:-)
——–
Hi Steph,
I agree that the culture in agencies is far from perfect, which is part of the reason why I no longer work in one myself.
The problem is the assumption that every problem has to do with the oppression of privileged white males over everyone else. This stems from the philosophy of postmodernism and its offspring ideology of feminism. These are mostly anti-scientific and based on theories of domination, power, gender and sex, etc, etc. It’s a mess. It denies well-documented findings from biology and evolutionary psychology that show how men and women have evolved to be fundamentally different.
There’s an excellent lecture in two parts on postmodernism I recommend you check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhK6XOT3uAA&t=3s (first part is a bit dry, but the second is highly relevant).
In short, I believe that a competitive industry like advertising favours men because men have evolved to be more competitive and aggressive. Ironically, it is women who have made us this way, as you get to be selective in your choice of mates, leaving us to fight for our place in the dominance hierarchy. Like it or not, women prefer high-status males. We see similarly problematic cultures developing in places like Wall Street, the army and the police (albeit for slightly different reasons in the case of the latter two), and I completely understand why many women don’t feel at home in these places.
However, these cultures don’t develop because men are against women, but because we’re against each other. After all, the majority of victims of male competition and aggression in all spheres of society are other males.
It’s just that the focus of the ideologues whose interest are best served by denying certain scientific realities is always on women, thus skewing reality and creating the false narratives we now see playing out across university campuses, mass-media and urban subcultures like our own industry.
The industry has issues, but labelling these as sexism/misogyny takes us down the wrong track towards solutions.
thanks for mansplaining that for us.
@nick
No, thank you!
We all contribute to the debate according to our abilities. So thank you for your contribution. The participation diploma is in the mail.
Your attempt to dismantle feminism (which actually arose out of socialism – not postmodernism) using a Youtube video goes to show how flimsy and inaccurate your argument is.
Evolutionary psychology is one of the most ‘unscientific’ disciplines as well (if you can call it a discipline). Evolutionary psychology is bedfellows with phrenology – the study of measuring peoples’ heads to determine their intelligence. It was used as an oppressive tool by colonialists to subjugate black people, or anyone who wasn’t white really.
I believe evolutionary psychology, which posits that women are good at home shit and men are good at throwing things, is from the same un-scientific camp which chooses to apply condescending terminology and classifications to people in order to maintain and justify the privilege and power of those at the ‘top’ of the social hierarchy (typically white, cis men).
Kelly,
Apologies, I was a bit quick claiming feminism derived from post-modernism. The first wave might very well have had socialist roots. The current third-wave installation, however, has more in common with post modernism and cultural Marxism than any kind of classical women’s rights movements.
Post modernism rejects so-called meta narratives that aspire to claims of any kind of objective truths, as they dismiss these as mere tools of oppression (which is how you see evolutionary psychology).
Instead of using science to guide their beliefs and opinions, they use their ideology to judge the usefulness of scientific claims as weapons to be employed in ideological warfare.
In other words, Kelly, you need to get your ideological beliefs sorted out. Above you imply that good science does exist, but that’s just gonna get you in trouble once something doesn’t support your worldview. Better off dismissing science as a whole, cause that makes it really difficult for us white cis male oppressors.
Unfortunately, now that you showed weakness (bad comrade!), your argument just leaves you looking foolish.
Evolutionary psychology follows the scientific method meticulously and is thus scientific. Now that you’ve admitted science can be a valid endeavour, I’m afraid you don’t just get to dismiss it, but have to argue against specifics. Don’t feel like it? Didn’t think so.
For those who might be interested in learning something, ‘How the mind works’, or ‘The blank slate’, by Steven Pinker (one of the most renowned scientists of our time) are good places to start, as is ‘The consuming instinct’ by Gad Saad. Then you can get the opposing view from the canon of feminist tmblr blogs, do a comparison and see who makes the stronger case.
“Evolutionary psychology is bedfellows with phrenology” is an absolutely astonishing thing to say.
As I’ve learned from Dr Jordan Peterson – Canadian professor and free speech advocate – when ignorance and arrogance combine with resentment in people with authoritarian personalities, we’re all in trouble. If only history wasn’t a tool of oppression, you and your comrades might have taken some notes from the last century and its track record of ideologies like the one you spew out.
I consider myself lucky to have not experienced this “boys club” mentality at any of the Sydney agencies I’ve worked for.
In the last three years I have had all female bosses going two rungs up the ladder from me… and my current creative team is 75% female.
I definitely don’t disagree that the issue exists, but if my agency can be like this, surely others can too.
Nothing here surprises me. As an industry we have lots to do. For an industry so obsessed with innovation you’d think gender equality would be high on the agenda.
As others have said, it’s unfair to blame just two agencies – they happen to be the ones included.
Happily though, in my recent agency experiences in Sydney I’ve found women to be treated much better than these scenarios show.
It goes the other way too.
We had an amazing, potentially award winning brief and our (female) CD really wanted myself and my art director to work on it. She was then told by the suits they wanted a ‘girl team’. Girls got the brief, we missed out. Couldn’t even work on it in our spare time.
Cool, no biggie. It’s discrimination in the workplace, but what can you do?
That aside.
I agree totally with Sharon’s comment before. We need to attract the best talent into this industry. It would be great if more of that talent was female. It would also be great if more of that talent came from a diverse background, grew up outside of Sydney, came from a working class family or has seen a bit of life outside of Surry Hills.
The bit that worries me, that despite occasional preferential treatment in the creative department, there are many, many articles claiming women are ‘exploited’ in advertising (honey, we all are).
And what really worries me about that, is when a bright, young girl thinking of applying for award school or looking at getting into the industry reads that and it turns her off. Then we have a self-perpetuating problem.
Let’s put some positivity in this and start calling out the role models for women – the ones who are kicking ass. At least give the girls something to look up to. And they are there. Sharon for starters.
It is encouraging that Miranda Ward‘s article featuring a part of my thesis has stirred up both bouquets and brickbats. It’s a discussion we need to have. (I should point out that I was not interviewed for this article.) Gender relations in workplaces are beginning to get the overdue attention they deserve which hopefully will lead to changes. I feel it is important to state that the two participating Sydney agencies supported my research because they were aware of and wanted to learn more about these issues and hoped my research would reveal possible ways to address them.
However, the article is based on only half the study the main focus of which is ‘masculinities and creativity.’ (Research took place in Delhi and Shanghai as well as Sydney). I was interested in the relationship between male creatives and their work and its importance in managing and forming their identities. This was balanced by the juxtaposed opinions of the women who worked with them. Gender relations form the backdrop against which this is played out.
If you would like to read my thoughts on the article and an explanation of the thesis, please visit https://ppriday.tumblr.com
Ummm….but where does it suggest that women need to support their sisters? Yep. Support other women. Give them a helping hand. Yes, there is more to it than this. It is countrywide not just in one industry (maybe just more apparent in this one!) and the reasons are complicated why humans have come to this point in time. Throughout my career (both agency and client side) I have had women place (if not lower) in the glass ceiling for other women.
Even the researcher is admitting this article is a highly selective, highly biased attack on certain agencies.
In case you missed it, here’s Mumbrella doing lovely things to support woman in powerful positions.
https://staging.mumbrella.com.au/news-colleagues-go-war-419291
But who gives a fuck. Certainly not Mumbrella. They got themselves plenty of clicks so far this year.
You guys disgust me. And I’m a female. You don’t want change. You want attention.
Meanwhile, Mumbrella…
https://youtu.be/RJ0hOKCSuns
…you’re saying “Paul” the researcher shares his IP address/agency with “who would have thunk it”? Are you discrediting Paul now? Or saying someone’s pretending to be Paul? Or Paul and somebody work together. We’re all a bit confused now.
Tim, can you write a follow up article please?? How about with suggestions for change.
Hi “So”,
Nope.
The person who posed as “Thanks For Clarifying Paul” then appeared to respond to their own comment as “Who Would Have Thunk It” with a link to the track “Better Get A Lawyer”. Trying, it would seem, to create the impression that there’s a sudden upswelling of some kind of legal issue.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Perhaps the topic of gender should have been asked to the female ECD and female MD of Mccann health.