Standing Proud with… Scott Knox

If you work in the Canadian advertising industry, you undoubtedly know the name Scott Knox. A man who needs little introduction, he’s not only the president and CEO of the Institute of Canadian Agencies (ICA), but an outspoken member of the 2SLGBTQ+ community and the founder of PrideAM. Someone who has worked on both sides of the pond, he’s seen a lot, done a lot, and has a lot to say when it comes to the diverse world of advertising and marketing.

Scott’s resumé speaks for itself, but beyond the career highlights, his perspective feels especially vital right now. As DEI efforts face increasing pushback, brands retreat from commitments like Pride, and companies struggle to meaningfully support queer and marginalised talent, hearing from someone who’s navigated this landscape with authenticity and intent felt essential. Which is why LBB’s Jordan Won Neufeldt sat down with him for a conversation.

LBB> Scott, you’re the president and CEO of the ICA, but you’re also the founder and board director of PrideAM. Tell us about this! How did this organisation come together, and why was it important for you to create this?

Scott> PrideAM started in the UK in 2015, in response to a hideous situation. Specifically, I was invited to the Festival of Media Global in Rome to be on a panel and talk about DEI (this was before it was fashionable). We were in this huge, swanky hotel, the session before us was full – the room easily held 800 people – but when it was announced that the DEI panel was up next, all but about 40 or 50 people left the room.

The peculiar thing, however, was what happened later that evening, when we went to the cocktail reception by the pool. I was getting this vibe that the only people I was talking to were women. I turned to the people I was with and said, "Is it just me, or are all the men avoiding me?" They told me I was ‘being paranoid', so I decided to try something out. I turned toward this group of five or six men, and they all turned their backs on me. It was appalling. This was meant to be the crème de la crème of the world media industry.

Anyway, the following day, I was doing an interview, and I was asked, "Scott, what are you going to take from this event and enact when you get back to the UK?" Incidentally, I'd just been talking to the amazing Lindsey Clay (who at that point was president of Women in Advertising and Communications, Leadership), and I just turned to the camera and said, "I'm going to go back to the UK and set up the 2SLGBTQ+ version of WACL." That's how it happened. It was the reaction to a bad situation, how I was made to feel in that environment, and the realisation that I wasn't going to take it anymore.

Fun fact, upon returning to the UK, it was actually my son who came up with the name ‘PrideAM’ and who drew me a little logo.

LBB> Let’s explore this a little more. How has your identity impacted the way you’ve navigated the industry? What has your experience been like?

Scott> It's been really challenging. Something that White gay men are very good at is assimilating into a sort of masculine, sexualised narrative, and I deeply regret that there were times when I didn't speak out against sexism because I was treated as 'one of the lads', despite my sexual orientation. Instead, I laughed, I didn't challenge that thinking, and I didn't speak up, especially with my seniors, because I wanted to be accepted.

The other thing was learning to use humour as a defense mechanism. I would make it super obvious that I was gay, because I didn't want to go through the whole ‘coming out drama’. I was outing myself immediately, using humour as a way to get through it, because I felt obliged to communicate my identity in some way. Why we feel that obligation, I don't know, but I believed that by being an uber-loud homosexual version of myself in the office – which was ridiculous at times, and just wasn't me – it was safer. My mum would often remind me, ‘You don't have to be the court jester in every environment you're in’, and she was right, but when we feel we need to introduce ourselves to the world, comedy often seems like one of the easiest ways to do it.

LBB> As part of this, you’ve spent significant time working in both the UK and Canada. Would you say the way you were treated differed between the two countries?

Scott> I’d say that in the UK, people are much more obvious and feel entitled to be homophobic. An example of this was being called 'dear', 'sweetie’, or 'lovey' in board meetings. It's the tactic people use in business discussions when they don't like how you're challenging them and, to denigrate you in the conversation, they'll point out your gender or sexual orientation. I went through that a lot. When I first became board director of the Marketing Agencies Association, there were lots of machismo men who didn't like the fact that this screaming queen who was a lot younger than them would challenge their position. So, they'd do just that. Literally, in board meetings, they'd say stuff like "Thank you, darling, we'll take that under consideration."

Meanwhile, in Canada, things get said in a very passive-aggressive way. Respectfully, I think some Canadians are very good at hiding their true natures; everyone wants to be nice and constantly apologise, and all the tropisms of being Canadian are so entrenched that there's actually a lack of real awareness about DEI. I actually think Canada is going to struggle more with truly unpacking what DEI needs to achieve, because Canadians don't think that they're bad people. It reminds me of when I used to smoke. The hypnotherapist told me that the worst category of smoker was the one that I was in: someone who didn't smoke regularly, only socially. Specifically, because people in that category don't really see themselves as smokers, it's harder to fully quit. In industry terms, Canadians do not see themselves as part of the DEI solution. They think they're too perfect. On the other hand, the Brits, because of their arrogance, just say it and think they're entitled to do it.

LBB> Jumping to the subject on everyone’s minds these days – DEI – what are your thoughts on the state of the union?

Scott> When I look at the Effie Awards, and all the case studies and marketing effectiveness results, there's a lot of research that will tell you if you act in the short term, your long term will be damaged. So, if there's a downturn in the economy, that’s probably the worst time to pull back your marketing spend, because the cost of digging yourself out on the other side is so much greater that ultimately, you spend more money.

My hope is that this is the same. You can already see brands who have stepped away from DEI losing business, while brands who have stuck with it are doing quite well. Because of this, I think brands that have stepped back are going to find it really hard should they ever seek to bring back DEI.

My advice to marketers is to decide whether you're in brand communications because you care about your brand in the long term, or if you're just going to be measured by your short-term sales success. No matter what, consumers will remember. So let that decide how you're going to play.

LBB> As part of this, do you think agencies should be taking a stronger stand against their partners who once talked the talk, but no longer walk the walk?

Scott> I do! The role of an agency has always been to be a very powerful consultant for the brand. If the agency feels that this is a mistake, then the agency needs to say that, not because it's going to tokenistically stand up for DEI, but because it knows it's going to harm the client's brand... which it will. Any agency that doesn't challenge this thinking might as well collectively put its employees in Madonna headsets and become a telecentre, because all they're doing is order-taking at that point. They're no longer a consultancy – they're not providing critique, dynamism, innovation and growth for their client – they're just doing as they're told, so what's the point of them existing?

So, I absolutely believe that agencies in these situations need to ask questions. 'What's the business case for that?', 'What is it you're trying to step away from?', 'Our findings show that if you don't remain long term, it'll do harm to that community, and those outside of it'. Admittedly, agencies may not actually get anywhere even if they do that, but if an agency's job is to critique what a client wants to do, it should apply the same due diligence to every marketing question.

LBB> As part of this, how might 2SLGBTQ+ employees navigate the balance of being true to their identity, when working with brands and agencies who might not uphold these values?

Scott> Anyone in the 2SLGBTQ+ community should feel confident in their ability to ask their manager why a decision was made. It can be as simple as, 'I'm part of this community, and I feel that our community has been erased from the work that I proudly contributed to. How would you suggest I handle that, and how are we going to address that with the client?'.

At the end of the day, if your agency wants you to be a full, 100% authentic member of the team, then it should care about how decisions like this affect you. You should be able to turn around and say, "I feel a bit challenged by that. What would you suggest I do? How do we help the client make a better decision? I'm seeking your guidance as the senior consultant on this account." You need to be prepared for a response like, ‘I haven't really got time for that’, which will tell you what you need to know. But, the boss may also turn around and say, "Look, what we've tried is this, so why don't we come up with another solution together?"

LBB> That raises an interesting point, which is that sometimes, businesses end up tokenising their marginalised demographics while trying to bring them into the conversation. How can a better balance be found?

Scott> That's a really simple one. To parrot one of my favourite answers, ‘you need leadership, remuneration, and at least three’.

The latter points are straightforward. Even within the demographic of gay White men, the differences of opinion are massive, for example, so to just have one voice is not good enough. Equally, businesses have to see if people are being paid as they should be for the job they’re doing.

However, the big thing is asking where these employees sit in the company hierarchy. If all a business does is celebrate – 'Oh look, there's a trans man working in that junior position over there, let's put him on a couple of posters' – that's tokenism. But if it's asking how it can help them grow, and inviting them to speak to leadership about how it can bring more people from their community into the fold, all while allowing them to show up honestly at work, that's action. To use an analogy, just because there are queer people in attendance at the high school disco doesn't mean they're really there. But if you're playing their music and asking them to lead the dance routines, then you're bringing them in and embracing their culture and being.

In short, actually involving these groups in senior decision making, promoting them, and paying them – that's what true value seeking looks like. If you're not doing those things, you're probably tokenising.

LBB> Looking ahead across 2025, what steps do you think are most imperative for adland to take with regards to the 2SLGBTQ+ community? And why?

Scott> Adland needs to do two things. First, it needs to think about marketing effectiveness. Is your decision based on the effectiveness of your brand, your sales, and your share price? If it is, you'll be ignoring this DEI backlash. If not, and you’re trying to play it safe and quiet because of the DEI backlash, then you should resign and go find a new job, because you're not a marketer.

I think everybody, whether you're in a marketing department or at an agency, needs to put their ally badge on right now. It needs to be big and it needs to be bold, because people in our community are hurting. Watching without them even being at the table as their lives are torn apart, speculated upon and discussed ad nauseam around the world is not enough. Real people will be feeling the mental effects, and if you are an ally, then you'll be reaching out to your colleagues who you know are queer and asking them if they're OK, what you can do to help, and how you can get you involved in the conversation. That's what adland needs to do. If people have only been wearing an ally badge for tokenistic reasons across the past six years, I will be really fucking disappointed.

LBB> Finally, is there anything you’d like to say to your fellow 2SGLBTQ+ community members in the industry?

Scott> To members of our community who work in the industry, I would encourage you not to panic. It's very easy to see this as a down moment, and it is, but I grew up during the '80s and back then, even the thought of a brand having a rainbow flag would have been absurd. In the space of 40 years, we are now having conversations about rainbow washing. That's pretty remarkable. It's just that now is the time of challenge.

History will tell you that we always take two steps forward and one step back. And it's going to be awful for those who are fearful, so please reach out to others in our community, because we’ll need each other. Particularly, if you’re a White gay male, remember that the world is worse for other members of our community. You need to be there for them and you need to step up. I look to our trans colleagues who are taking this in a very, very different way, and how the impact on their lives is so much more serious than on the rest of the 2SLGBTQ+ community. That challenge is real, and it's different.

As marketers, however, and a society, we have moved the dial forward. There has been progression, and we really need to try and hold firm, as we will eventually take two more steps forward. I truly believe it will come.