It is time for agencies to reject racist clients and put ethics before revenue
A toxic client will not only damage an agency’s reputation and credibility, but also bring team morale down, so agencies must fight against unethical behaviour even if it means giving up business – says Lina Marican.
I have been closely following the Papa John’s public relations crisis over the past weeks – not for the company’s response to it, but to see how agencies around the brand have reacted.
Thankfully, they’ve all reacted exactly the way they should have. One after another, Papa John’s marketing, PR and media agencies – Laundry Service, Olson Engage and Initiative – parted ways with the client; with newly-minted creative agency Fallon pulling the plug just after a month of working with the firm.
It is time for agencies and the media to wake up to themselves. They are there to flog pizza, not to sit in judgement.
Full marks for spelling “flak” correctly, though.
Sorry Paridell, but I have to disagree.
If instead of this being a case of making money for multi-million dollar pizza giant (because lets face it Papa Johns isn’t a charity), the client was Hilter and he was asking you to sell the Holocaust to the world, would you still need to wake up to themselves and flog the product?
Clearly that’s a highly extreme example, but my point is everyone – agency and staff – have a line somewhere that they just can’t cross. And clearly racism crosses it for a lot of people.
For a simpler example, what if the objection to this client was on the basis of health (fast food being one of the largest causes of America’s obesity epidemic)? Would you still think that the agency and its team should just get over themselves, shut-up and sell pizza?
I wasn’t aware the third reich’s ultimate plan was to sell pizza.
It’s up to the public to boycott the product and the share holders / board to fire the CEO – I imagine the backlash is going to cost Papa John’s some money. The agency can be forthright that they find the CEO’s views repugnant, but I don’t think there’s a moral conflict there unless the CEO asks the agency to use blackface to sell pizza.
An agency can take a moral stand against whatever product or organisation they choose: cigarettes, plastic, petrol companies, products containing sugar, political parties – the list is infinite, and there’s is an opportunity cost and a potential opportunity win for each.
Personally I thought the ‘no’ campaign vote was a clear cut example where I wouldn’t take the client. There was no actual argument for the case, which ground down to at best that some people deserve to be treated differently because of tradition, and went directly against my values.
There’s more than enough moral preening and virtue-signalling in the world today without agencies adding to it. The public will decide whether they approve or disapprove of a brand and its products, and that’s the most effective arbiter of what’s right and wrong. Not some precious agency millennial wanting to prove to the world how virtuous they are.
Danielle, I will be charitable and assume that you are unaware that the Holocaust was carried out in secret. Your example of Hitler engaging an advertising agency to promote it may therefore be excused on grounds of ignorance. I was going to advise capitalisation in any future references that you might make to the Holocaust, but on present evidence you really should avoid any further comment.
I agree with the sentiment, however there needs to be some discretion used when labeling a brand as racist. A company like Papa Johns is much bigger than it’s founder, employs thousands of people and isn’t trying to push a racist agenda (as far as I know). The situation is very unfortunate for the rest of the company and they’ve reacted by removing him from the business completely, demonstrating that they are not aligned with his views. It seems harsh to call them a racist client. I would say if they continued to let him operate as their CEO then it would be a bit more cut & dry.