Two things happened on June 17:

• Wieden + Kennedy released a statement of support for BLM, saying it wouldn't work w/ clients who don't "support this sentiment."

• The NAACP, ADL and more launched the #StopHateForProfit boycott against W+K client Facebook (cont.) https://twitter.com/AgencySpy/status/1278773164223262720

Since then, the boycott has snowballed in unprecedented ways and now includes major advertisers including W+K clients Coca-Cola, Ford and many more (you can hear our summary podcast on it here: https://bit.ly/3dLC0dL  )

This obviously puts Wieden + Kennedy—famous for its willingness to take / support strong social stances, especially around race—in an unenviable spot. It faces an option between two dangerous paths...

Option A: The agency sticks with Facebook at a time when brand marketers and Civil Rights groups are calling it a breeding ground of hate speech. W+K leaders, fresh off their bold pledge to fire anti-BLM clients, could look like hypocrites internally and externally.

Option B: W+K resigns Facebook, losing tons of revenue (+ likely triggering layoffs) and also losing its ability to effect change from the inside and be a voice for equality in closed-door conversations where such advocates are clearly needed right now.

This is all supposition, of course, since W+K's official stance, as told to me today, is that it would "unprofessional" to discuss Facebook's issues and critics. Fwiw, I appreciate that they responded at all and didn't (like other FB agencies) simply ignore me.

Perhaps I'm being unfair expecting W+K to speak up and explain its position here, when I clearly don't expect the other agencies in FB's roster to do so. But those agencies are all owned by global holding cos, and W+K remains famously independent.

But Wieden also sets itself up for this level of accountability when it takes a strong stance on BLM and directly says it won't work with clients who oppose the beliefs behind the movement. It's clear from the scope of the boycott that many do not believe FB to be an ally.

How does an agency decide which clients support the "sentiment" of Black Lives Matter? And when you're a group of white execs on the opposite side of the issue from the NAACP, what do you take away from that? That's a harsh way to put it, but it's a legitimate question.

Here's an unlikely but fascinating scenario: What if another agency, likely owned by a corporate behemoth, resigns Facebook on principle grounds before Wieden + Kennedy? Hard for your words to not to look hollow when you're the second or third to act on them.

I think July is going to be a month of reckoning for Facebook and its agencies in a lot of ways. I haven't even touched on the issue of conflict of interest when an agency works for FB with one hand and then drafts media spending strategies to clients with the other.

Can you imagine being a brand whose creative strategy agency also works for Facebook right now? Could you trust them to be objective and principled advisers on issues like the boycott?

Thanks for hearing me out. And stay tuned. Going to be a wild few weeks.