Key findings
A new study of pay in the United States advertising sector finds a persistent gender gap even after adjusting for the usual explanations. The research, led by strategist Jess Watts with UCLA’s Dr. Nancy Wayne and data scientist Ryan Crone and published by DNA and Stone, shows that women in advertising earn about 5 percent less than men on average once education, experience, hours, geography and agency type are accounted for. For mothers the shortfall rises to roughly 8 percent. The analysis is based on more than 900 respondents included in the final sample and underscores a gap that the authors say cannot be explained away by conventional structural factors. See the full reporting by Audrey Kemp at Adweek and the study from DNA and Stone.
Method and scope
Watts developed the survey in collaboration with academic researchers and circulated it through industry networks including professional associations and alumni groups. The project began as a personal inquiry and grew into a formal study that ultimately analysed 926 responses. The researchers controlled for a wide range of variables commonly offered to explain pay differences and then examined where unexplained disparities remain. DNA and Stone is publishing the study and the accompanying materials online. For context and reporting, read the Adweek coverage.
Perception versus reality
The study reveals a striking disconnect between broad awareness and personal recognition. Almost all women surveyed said a gender pay gap exists in advertising, yet only about one third believed they personally were paid less because of their gender. The authors interpret that gap as a psychological tension: it is easier to acknowledge systemic problems in the abstract than to accept that one’s own employer may be the source of unfair treatment. The research also finds that pay decisionmaking remains opaque at many agencies. Nearly half of women said they did not understand how salaries were set at their organisation, and more than two thirds had been at companies where employees were discouraged from discussing pay. That last practice is already a legal risk under US federal labour law and is a clear governance problem for firms that value talent retention.
Where the gap takes shape
Beyond opacity, the study identifies specific workplace dynamics where the disparity is enacted. Women who raised pay concerns with their direct managers were more likely than men to encounter indifference or stalled conversations. By contrast, men seeking explanations or outcomes were more likely to receive direct answers, even when those answers were negative. The researchers point to a gatekeeping effect at the manager level as a key intervention point. Another notable pattern is the association between homosocial comfort among decisionmakers and pay outcomes. Men who reported being uncomfortable working closely with women tended, on average, to earn more than their female colleagues, which the authors connect to a tendency for leaders to reward people who resemble themselves. That dynamic compounds over careers and produces the long‑term financial penalties highlighted by the study.
The long game: money, careers and retention
Watts and her collaborators model the cumulative impact of the observed gaps over a 25 year career and estimate losses in the order of six figures. For women who have never been pregnant the projected loss is substantial; for mothers the figure is larger still. The consequence is not just individual financial harm. Agencies that tolerate opaque pay practices and weak escalation pathways risk losing talent, reducing diversity of thought in senior teams and creating a competitive disadvantage in a market where creative and strategic skills are the core product.
Practical remedies and agency accountability
The study offers concrete, business‑focused remedies that agencies can and should adopt. Recommended measures include clearly published pay bands, regular independent compensation audits, transparent promotion criteria and formal escalation processes so pay concerns do not stop at the direct manager level. DNA and Stone says it has already begun implementing some of these steps internally, including revising promotion guidelines to make advancement paths clearer. Those are sensible, low‑friction changes that reduce legal and reputational risk while improving morale. For further reading see the Adweek report and the study materials at DNA and Stone.
Why this matters to Irish firms
This research should matter to agency leaders in Ireland and beyond. The arguments for transparency and accountability are not ideological; they are commercial. Agencies invest heavily in people and in building client relationships that depend on continuity and trust. A culture where pay is unclear or where escalation stalls at middle management creates unnecessary churn and puts intellectual capital at risk. From a pragmatic management perspective, publishing pay bands, conducting periodic audits and training managers to respond constructively to pay queries are straightforward ways to reduce turnover and protect margins.
A final note for owners and leaders
The findings put the onus squarely on leadership. If the gap is still visible after controlling for education, hours and role, the remaining explanations are organisational and behavioural. That means the fixes are also managerial and procedural. For firms that value merit, growth and healthy balance sheets, transparency plus enforceable accountability should not be a hard sell. Read the original coverage by Audrey Kemp at Adweek for the complete report and consult the DNA and Stone publication for the study details.
