The woman at left is beautiful. She’s also an engineer. And as LinkedIn recently learned the hard way, those two things are not, in fact, mutually exclusive.

Toptal, a small developer networking platform, had featured this image in its ads for engineers, which appeared on LinkedIn. After “many LinkedIn members complained” about the image, the tech giant pulled the ads, telling Toptal that the promos could be run again once the picture in question had been replaced by “different images, related to the product.”

In other words, LinkedIn assumed an inherent disconnect between the image of a beautiful woman and a tech career like engineering.

Outraged by LinkedIn’s decision, CEO of Toptal, Taso Du Val (who I am proud to call a former classmate), wrote a scathing blog post, titled: “In Defense of Female Engineers.” In the original post, Du Val wrote, in part:

“Today was a disappointing day at Toptal. We saw extreme sexism within the tech community, from an industry leader and advertising partner that we work with quite extensively: LinkedIn…Are they seriously siding with people who complained to LinkedIn that our female software engineers are offensive?…these (and others) are our real engineers that we have signed contracts with. And even if they were only stock photography, who cares? The point is, they’re perfectly fine and represent normal professional people. Our male versions are no different. They’re male engineers, smiling, some with glasses, some without; the whole idea LinkedIn had was just ridiculous.

The fact of the matter is: members of the tech community (LinkedIn users) saw it as impossible that our female engineers could actually be engineers, and a leader of the tech community (LinkedIn) agreed with them. Unfortunately we’re banned from showing anything except 100%, all male software advertisements from now on and so, that’s what you’ll be getting. I’m disappointed both on a personal and professional level. I expect better.” Read more

Women’s rights group Women, Action, & The Media (WAM), one of the organizations that blew the whistle on Facebook’s failure to crack down on misogynistic content this past May, has now set its sites on Clear Channel.

Recently, the South Wind Women’s Center in Wichita, KS, which provides access to full-spectrum reproductive healthcare — including abortion care — tried to run ads for their services on several local radio stations owned by media conglomerate Clear Channel. Clear Channel, however, pulled them off the air for violating “decency standards.” But those same stations, WAM points out, run ads for the local “adult boutique,” without similar concerns about decency.

In response to Clear Channel’s decision, WAM, in partnership with the South Wind Women’s Center, launched the #changethechannel campaign in order to insist that women’s health care is never indecent, and that everyone has the right to know where they can get medical care.

Since the launch of the effort, thousands of citizens in Wichita and across the country have phoned, emailed and tweeted the Wichita Clear Channel office as well as Clear Channel’s corporate representatives, calling on the company to run the ads. Many thousands more have signed petitions to the same effect.

Amidst the uproar, the GM of Clear Channel in Wichita, Rob Burton, left his post on July 31 without public explanation. Burton had been responsible for the final call to pull the ads. A few days before his sudden departure, he had said simply, “As members of the Wichita community, KZSN has a responsibility to use our best judgment to ensure that advertising topics and content are as non-divisive as possible for our local audience.” Read more

Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a bill into law that bans ”propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” and threatens openly gay or “pro-gay” citizens and foreigners with fines, arrests and possible jail time. Another new law restricts adoptions of Russian children by people in countries that allow same-sex marriage.

With the 2014 Winter Olympics set to take place in Sochi, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) says it has received assurances ”from the highest level of government in Russia that the legislation will not affect those attending or taking part in the Games.” It pledged to ensure there would be no discrimination against athletes, officials, spectators or the media during the games.

Many equal-rights activists are unimpressed with the IOC’s response, and feel that whether or not the laws directly affect the games is far from the point. ”They should be advocating for the safety of all LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) people in Russia, not simply those visiting for the Olympics,” said Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin. ”Rescinding this heinous law must be our collective goal.”

In order to make their voices heard, activists have been writing petitions and staging boycotts.

The “Dump Russian Vodka” campaign, started by internationally syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage, has prompted bars across the US, UK, Canada and Australia to stop serving Russian brands like Stolichnaya. In response, Stolichnaya’s CEO Val Mendeleev wrote an open letter last week condemning the recent laws and reaffirming the brand’s commitment to the LGBT community. The brand’s website has also undergone an overhaul, and now features a rainbow block of text boasting that the brand “stands strong and proud with the global LGBT community against the attitude and actions of the Russian government.” (We’d call this a winning damage control response) Read more

The marketing of fast food to children has been a hot topic in our increasingly health-conscious society as of late, with everyone from politicians to organizations like the Center for Science in the Public Interest weighing in on the touchy subject. It is in this environment that Taco Bell has made the decision to stop carrying kids’ meals, and is touting itself as the first national fast food chain to make this pioneering change.

While advocacy groups may be pleased with Taco Bell’s decision, it seems the chain is making this move less for moral reasons, and more for simple financial and branding ones.

The main incentive for dropping kids’ meals is that they don’t really jive with the chain’s core customers — the younger portion of the millennial demographic (i.e. bored high-schoolers and drunk college kids). In fact, kids’ meals represent a mere 0.5% of its sales, according to the company (compared to McDonald’s, where Happy Meals account for about 10% of U.S. sales).

“As we continue our journey of being a better, more relevant Taco Bell, kid’s meals and toys simply no longer make sense for us to put resources behind,” said Greg Creed, CEO of Taco Bell, in a statement. “What does make sense is concentrating on expanding choices that meet and exceed the diverse needs of consumers of all ages, without losing focus on what makes us great today.” Read more

Let’s begin by saying, yes, this story is disconcerting on every level. It makes us lose faith in brands, public relations, the law, celebrities, marketing experts and regular human beings in general. No one looks good in this PR and legal debacle—well, scam. But let’s dig a little deeper.

Skechers is in trouble with the law and the public because it pursued an aggressive campaign—leveraging shiny celebrities and bogus claims—promising that the brand’s Shape-Up line of shoes helped people lose weight and trim their figures (especially their bottoms). People bought into the hype; so much so, in fact, that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is issuing 509,175 refund checks to customers who purchased the shoes. Skechers paid a $40 million settlement.

The public loves its free-market economy and capitalism. But people feel Skechers has crossed a line in this instance. We know buying a pair of shoes endorsed by LeBron James does not make anyone play basketball at his level. But kids can dream and the marketing message is largely aspirational. LeBron James is a supremely talented, rich and famous basketball phenom—and a marketing juggernaut.

Kim Kardashian, on the other hand, has no discernible talent other than being Kim Kardashian—which, let’s admit, she’s very good at: The celebrity-obsessed public paid for her sham wedding (to a basketball star!), after all. But reality TV stars often aren’t even good at reality. So for the public to believe in the shell game of reality TV stars endorsing anything other than themselves is just disappointing for the professionals who make a living at selling quality products. Read more

When I logged into my social media accounts early this morning, all seemed generally quiet — Facebook was filled with the cat videos and snarky memes that mid-week duldrums often produce, and nothing really jumped out at me on Twitter. However, In the time it took me to drive home from my in-laws’ (roughly two hours), those same social media accounts had exploded with angry posts, shared articles, and multiple invitations to join boycotts. The source of the ire? The latest cover of Rolling Stone.

The cover responsible for the sudden and fierce firestorm features a self-taken portrait of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and promises that the accompanying story will explain “how a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam, and became a monster.”

Though the same picture has been featured in other publications, including on the front page of The New York Times this past spring, the outrage seems to stem from the fact that it appears on a cover generally reserved for music’s brightest stars and the Hollywood elite who have officially “made it big.” By featuring Tsarnaev on its cover, many feel that Rolling Stone is glamorizing him. Read more

Google is being criticized by the attorneys general of Oklahoma and Nebraska for allegedly profiting from ads associated with YouTube videos that promote illicit activities.

Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt sent a letter (PDF) to Google general counsel Kent Walker, asking him how much money the company generates from ads related to illegal sales of prescription drugs and counterfeit merchandise, and requesting detailed information as to the steps it is taking to curb the practice.

The letter reads in part: “As we understand the process, video producers are asked prior to posting whether they will allow YouTube to host advertising with the video and, for those who consent, the advertising revenue is shared between the producer and Google. While this practice itself is not troubling, we were disappointed to learn that many such monetized videos posted to YouTube depict or even promote dangerous or illegal activities.”

Specific examples given in the letter include ads for “pharmacies” that promote the illegal sale of drugs like oxycontin and percocet without a prescription, videos providing how-to guidelines for the forging of drivers licenses and passports, and videos promoting the sale of counterfeit merchandise.

“Not only are the activities depicted or promoted in the above-described videos illegal in and of themselves, but in the case of document forgery,” the letter states, “the how-to guide could be instrumental in the commission of other crimes ranging from under-age drinking to acts of terrorism.”

The letter asks that Google respond within 30 days with detailed information about the monetization of such ads, and warns that although both attorneys general hope to work collaboratively with the web giant to find a mutually agreeable solution, they “take these issues very seriously, and are prepared to take appropriate action to safeguard [their] citizens.” Read more

Facebook vowed to crack down on offensive content on its site back in May after multiple advertisers — including auto giant Nissan — pulled their ads from the social networking site. At the time, Facebook was facing protests from social activist groups — especially those associated with gender equality — due to the company’s failure to remove pages dedicated to gender-based hate speech and misogynistic content.

In May, Facebook said of the issue,”…it has become clear that our systems to identify and remove hate speech have failed to work as effectively as we would like, particularly around issues of gender-based hate. In some cases, content is not being removed as quickly as we want.  In other cases, content that should be removed has not been or has been evaluated using outdated criteria.”

The company promised that it would take steps to improve, like reviewing and updating guidelines, updating training for its review teams, increasing accountability for creators of harmful content, and establishing more formal and direct lines of communication between itself and rights groups.

Now, Facebook is taking it a step further; the company has declared that, beginning this week, it will remove ads on pages that contain “any violent, graphic or sexual content.” In other words, even though certain pages may not technically violate Facebook’s community standards policies — and therefore cannot be forcibly taken down — the social network will remove advertising from pages that it deems offensive or controversial. Read more

For about 70 cents, you can buy a soda (regular or diet)…

No industry relies more heavily on the public’s good will than the non-profit sector, which ostensibly exists for the sole purpose of serving the greater good. For this reason, inflammatory reports about how some of America’s biggest charities spend their money present professional and ethical challenges for crisis comms experts.

50 foundations around the country desperately need some good PR right now after a joint project by the Tampa Bay Times, CNN, and The Center for Investigative Reporting named them among the worst in the country for doing little beyond “turn[ing] donations into profit.”

The saddest part about this story is the fact that most of the groups on the list claim to support children, veterans, cancer victims, and public servants like cops and state troopers. We’d like to think that Americans will be quick to punish any charity suspected of exploiting sick kids.

Read more

Most 19-year-olds don’t get a chance to visit outer space, leave their pet monkeys stranded in Germany or cruise the California highways in a leopard print Audi 8 at speeds high enough to draw warnings from local cops and former NFL players.

In some ways, however, Justin Bieber is just like every other American boy; he loves his mommy enough to buy her flowers every Mother’s Day. More specifically, he loves 1-800-Flowers, and he wants his 40 million Twitter followers to know all about it.

Everybody knows I love #MyMom! @1800flowers Mother’s Day is on Sunday! Love your momma! Love u @pattiemallette – http://t.co/SGLffn0bo2

— Justin Bieber (@justinbieber) May 9, 2013

No one should be surprised to learn that Bieber has a contract with 1-800-Flowers, but you won’t see any mention of that fact in his promotional tweets. The Biebs is only the most prominent of a slew of celebrities endorsing brands on Twitter and other social media forums with no disclaimers in sight. Kim Kardashian, for example, often makes five figures for a single branded tweet but never discloses her relationships with her sponsors.

That might change soon if the FTC has its way.

Read more