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.
For the uninitiated, a couple of months ago, the global pizza chain’s founder, John Schnatter, used a racial slur during a conference call, causing irreversible damage to himself and the brand. In fact, rumblings of racism emerged as early as November when Schnatter critiqued the American National Football League’s handling of the country’s national anthem protests.
In response, the company’s marketing agency called for a media training, role-playing, exercise to prevent future PR blunders. It was then that Schnatter used the racial slur and downplayed his NFL statement by disparaging another fast-food chain.
And yet, Papa John’s isn’t the only brand to face flak for racism this year. In April, a Starbucks employee reported two black men to the police. They were subsequently arrested for ‘trespassing’ in a local store. What followed was fury on social media and a call for a national boycott.
The problem of racism is somewhat different but no less disappointing in Asia. Several brands have used and continue to use ‘blackface’ to market their products to consumers.
Dunkin Donuts did it in Thailand, Watsons in Malaysia and more recently China’s state broadcaster CCTV dressed a Chinese actress as an African to elicit laughs in a Chinese New Year gala skit.
Unfortunately, racism remains a deep-rooted systematic problem around the world. Cases like these continue to happen because, whether intended or not, business leaders and practices don’t acknowledge or attempt to battle bias and unconscious bias.
Admitting and accepting there is a problem is half the battle – and this is where agencies can actually take a stand for change, as a force for good.
When it’s time to fire a client
In the marketing world, there’s nothing remarkable about problematic or even controversial clients. But when it comes to sensitive topics like race, agencies must respond immediately or risk being lumped in with the negativity.
Agency leaders must take a stand when it comes to servicing clients that go against the company’s culture. A toxic client will not only damage an agency’s reputation and credibility, but also bring team morale down.
It’s a tough call to make, especially in a challenging business environment where agencies are jostling to win new business and prove themselves profitable. However, you’ll thank yourself for doing it in the longer term.
If it’s time for you to dump a toxic client, remember the following:
Decide if it’s the right move for the agency
Going beyond revenue, agency leaders need to take a hard look at how the clients’ behaviour and beliefs will impact team members and the agency’s reputation across the industry.
Don’t leave clients in the lurch
We’re professionals. We need to respectfully notify the client and help to wrap-up all loose ends, providing a full handover to help clients with business continuity.
The legal stuff
Work with your legal team to ensure all is in order. Apart from notifying the clients and internal teams, do issue a simple industry alert to highlight that you’ve decided to part ways. Consider including a mutual limitation of liability clause, as well as a termination clause to protect your agency moving forward.
You must be able to turn down contracts where there is a difference in values between agency and client, or a disagreement on what is ethical and what isn’t. We have had to do that ourselves on occasion.
After all, if we don’t take a stand to uphold our own principles then who will?
Lina Marican is managing director of Mutant Communications.
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.
User ID not verified.
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?
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.