.png&h=570&w=855&q=100&v=20170226&c=1)
I’d love to say I was shocked when Wieden+Kennedy Sydney announced its first creative hires—four white men. But I wasn’t. Instead, I felt the familiar, exhausting mix of frustration and déjà vu.
Because we’ve been here before.
We’ve sat in endless panels about diversity and heard industry leaders promise change. We’ve read glossy reports filled with targets and commitments to gender equity. And yet, when the big hires are made when the real power is handed out, it still overwhelmingly goes to men.
This latest hiring decision—on a McDonald’s account, no less, a brand that speaks to a broad and diverse audience—sent a clear message: despite all the talk, Australian advertising’s top jobs are still reserved for the boys.
Same excuses, same outcomes
Of course, the backlash was swift. Industry voices, both men and women, called it out for what it was: another example of an agency failing to prioritise diverse hiring despite the overwhelming evidence that diverse creative teams produce better, more effective work. Wieden+Kennedy’s response? A familiar tune. They acknowledged the problem, promised to work on it, and assured us they valued diversity. But words mean nothing when actions tell a different story.
We’ve heard these excuses before:
• “We hire the best person for the job.”
• “There just weren’t enough female candidates at this level.”
• “We’ll address diversity in the next round of hiring.”
All of these statements ignore the fact that women and people from underrepresented backgrounds are ready and capable of taking on these roles. The real issue is that too often, hiring decisions fall back on networks of familiarity—mates hiring mates. And in an industry historically dominated by men, that means more of the same.
The ‘merit’ argument—and why It falls short
In response to my own LinkedIn post on this topic, a man commented: “People have received a job; you posted that they should not have received that job purely on the basis of their gender. Not one person could make a claim as to why those gentlemen didn’t deserve their jobs based on merit, hard work, intelligence, etc. You have reduced those people down to their gender.”
We often hear this argument—that questioning an all-male hire means questioning the men’s merit. And let’s be clear: no one is saying these men didn’t work hard or don’t deserve opportunities. But when the outcome—over and over again—is that leadership remains overwhelmingly male, we have to ask: Is the system truly fair?
Merit is not objective. Merit is shaped by opportunity, visibility, and access. If the same types of people keep getting the top jobs even though women make up 60% of advertising graduates, then the playing field is not level.
This isn’t about men versus women. When we have diversity, everyone wins. The work is better. The culture is stronger. The talent pool expands. This conversation isn’t about ‘cancelling’ anyone—it’s about ensuring that the best and most diverse voices are in the room. While not everyone will agree with this perspective, at least we’re having the conversation. Talking about lived experiences with someone who hasn’t ‘lived’ them is always difficult, but that doesn’t mean the conversation isn’t worth having.
The bigger picture: A step backward
Adding to the concern is the broader shift we’re seeing across industries, where companies once vocal about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are quietly stepping away from their commitments. McDonald’s, the brand at the centre of this Wieden+Kennedy hire, has reportedly scaled back its DEI initiatives, which should raise alarm bells.
This context cannot be ignored for an agency working on a major McDonald’s account. Against this backdrop, the decision to appoint an all-male creative team becomes even more troubling. It raises questions about the agency’s commitment to diversity and the influence of clients’ shifting priorities on agency practices.
What needs to change?
We don’t need more statements about commitment to diversity. We need action.
1. Stop pretending this is a pipeline problem.
Women exist at every level of this industry. If agencies aren’t seeing them, they need to look harder.
2. Stop making women more expendable than men.
We see a repeating pattern when agencies restructure or downsize: women—especially middle-aged women, return-to-work mothers, those on parenting leave, and part-time employees are—are often the first to go. If agencies are truly committed to gender equity, they need to stop treating women as disposable.
3. Tie diversity to accountability.
If creative leaders make the same exclusionary hiring decisions, there should be consequences. Agencies and holding companies must track and report progress and hold leadership responsible for results.
4. Stop rewarding homogeneity.
We must change how we define and reward leadership if we want different outcomes. The best creative leaders aren’t just the loudest voices in the room—they build strong, diverse teams.
5. Hold clients responsible, too.
Clients have the power to demand better from their agencies. Brands should push back if an agency presents an all-male, all-white leadership team. They should be asking: Who is creating our campaigns? Whose perspectives are shaping our messaging? Agencies will change when they see that clients expect more—and are willing to take their business elsewhere if they don’t deliver.
6. Change starts from within.
We also need more women advocating for women at every level. Senior women must lift
others up, not just assume that “being the exception” is enough. Leadership should build
succession plans that prioritise diversity, not just pay lip service to it in boardroom
discussions.
No more lip service
Women in Australian advertising are tired of waiting, tired of excuses, and tired of being
told that change takes time when, really, change takes willingness. So let’s be clear: the next time an agency tries to justify an all-male, all-white leadership team, we’re not buying it.
This isn’t a lack of talent; it’s a lack of effort.
Jet Swain is a speaker, mentor, educator and founder of Australia-based, The Affection Economy.
.jpg&h=334&w=500&q=100&v=20170226&c=1)
.png&h=334&w=500&q=100&v=20170226&c=1)
.jpg&h=334&w=500&q=100&v=20170226&c=1)
.jpg&h=334&w=500&q=100&v=20170226&c=1)
.jpg&h=268&w=401&q=100&v=20170226&c=1)
.jpg&h=268&w=401&q=100&v=20170226&c=1)
.jpg&h=268&w=401&q=100&v=20170226&c=1)