Oldies clinging to power: Tanya Goyal on the AAAI showdown

In this interview with e4m, Tanya Goyal explains why she chose to recuse herself from the selection committee before deliberations began, alleges systemic governance failures within the association, questions the absence of objective evaluation criteria and conflict-of-interest safeguards, and outlines why she believes industry bodies must adopt governance standards comparable to those expected of listed companies.

Excerpts:

You have alleged that the AAAI's selection process failed basic standards of corporate governance. Was there a specific moment during the deliberations when you concluded the process was beyond repair, or had concerns been building over time?

Sandeep’s nominations for Lifetime Achievement have been made by multiple AAAI members over the past 5 years. Every year he was passed over. We did not contest the results or voice reservations or dissent

This year at Goa Fest Srinivasan Swamy, AAAI President tried to bait me saying Dr. Goyal should get nominated again. I flatly told him that it is a closed-door club and there was no need to join the selection. He said to me that the process was transparent and fair and that he would invite me to join the deliberations as a special invitee, which I accepted

Two days before the meeting, a notice was received. I asked Swamy why a score sheet was not attached; why there were no selection guidelines. He said selection is by consensus. I said that makes the process opaque and prone to influence. He said that is the way it is. I said I will recuse

On the morning of the meeting since nothing had changed, I sent in a formal letter regretting my inability to join a selection that had much scope for cronyism

The next thing I see is Mr. Swamy sending out press releases alleging lobbying, and making sensational claims.

The President’s knee-jerk defence and PR offensive ever since is a cover-up because I have dared to speak up and question the big boys club, no more. I spoke up and distanced myself BEFORE the meeting; Swamy started ranting POST the meeting and POST the matter going public

Your criticism goes beyond one award and questions the governance culture within AAAI. Do you believe this is an isolated failure, or does it point to a deeper institutional problem in how industry bodies are run?

Same faces. Same committees. Most of the members who dominate AAAI decision making have remained constant. Same thinking. Same circle of influence. Same hiding under past precedents.

In the old days. The heads of HTA, Ogilvy, Rediffusion, Ulka all played leading roles in the AAAI. Today most top agency heads have distanced themselves from the association’s active leadership. No boutiques, no AI studios, no really new blood is inducted. It is an old boys club and they run it as their fiefdom – extending patronage to their own cronies and friends, year after year.

I don’t want to take names but one of the members of the Lifetime committee had actually ceased to be in the employment of the company he was representing on the AAAI weeks earlier. But for reasons best known to the AAAI he stayed on till the end of the lifetime recipient decision and then resigned right after. What could be more shameful on both ethics and processes?

You pushed for objective evaluation criteria and conflict-of-interest disclosures but were overruled. Who opposed those suggestions, and what reasons were given for rejecting what many would consider standard governance practices?

All decisions are opaque. But from my personal understanding, the President (atleast the current one) decides everything. Rest are all convenient rubber stamps.

The data on recusals and interested party was specifically enquired from the AAAI Secretariat and they provided the feedback. So it is all accurate. In past years there are specific instances of the award being given to a gentleman who was on the active WhatsApp group on media-fixing that the CCI is investigating. So many of these jurors were ‘interested parties’ with active common business interests with the recipient. I asked the AAAI Secretariat about recusals or ‘interested party’ declarations. There were none.

Another recent recipient had a previous direct reportee and his current boss/partner on the jury. Again no distancing or recusal.

Mr. Swamy’s answer to me was “everyone knows everyone”.

The bit on the rollover of candidates is a complete googly. The email inviting nominations never mentioned it; the nomination form had no mention of a rollover. So the President has basically put candidates in this year’s consideration list who are not even nominated by anyone this year. This is manipulation, nothing else. Pure cronyism.

AAAI has maintained that its consensus-based approach has worked for years and has honoured some of the biggest names in Indian advertising. Are you effectively questioning the credibility of past Lifetime Achievement Awards as well, or only the current process?

In past years there are specific instances of the award being given to a gentleman who was on the active WhatsApp group on media-fixing that the CCI is investigating. So many of these jurors were ‘interested parties’ with active common business interests with the recipient. Another recent recipient had a previous direct reportee and his current boss/partner on the jury.

Mr. Swamy’s answer to me was “everyone knows everyone”. What can I say?

Past choices too have not all been clean – when Roda Mehta won in 2017, a lot of dirty linen got washed on excerpts from Ogilvy groups – so there have been other kinds of challenges in the past. The legendary Tara Sinha was never awarded. Much has been written on that in the past.

You have now issued a legal notice alleging defamation. Was this litigation a last resort after private engagement with AAAI failed, or do you believe the association left you with no alternative?

My angst is really with the current President’s behaviour, his constant shelter around how ‘this is the only way’.

Having figured that he was set on his agenda, I ethically bowed out BEFORE the committee meeting. Then Mr. Swamy started assigning motives - I challenge President Swamy to produce a single reprimand, show cause notice or a warning issued to me for “lobbying”. He was just trying to malign us because he did not get his way. Something he is used to. As a seasoned veteran he could have also informed the committee about attempts to lobby. But he didn’t because THERE WAS NO LOBBYING, just uncomfortable questions about process which he had no answers to.

The legal notice was the only way out.

Several industry executives privately acknowledge concerns about overlapping leadership roles and recurring committee memberships. Do you believe a small circle of influential individuals exercises disproportionate control over India's advertising institutions?

Yes I have said that above. These days not visible in AAAI but very visible in IAA and AAFA is a past President who sold his agency 15-20 years ago but is a dominant force in decision making in all advertising associations. Oldies clinging to power. Sad.

Critics may argue that by taking this battle public, you risk damaging the reputation of AAAI at a time when the industry needs unity. How do you respond to those who say institutional reform should happen behind closed doors rather than through public confrontation?

Industry bodies have to have visible governance norms and transparency at every step. That can’t be done behind closed doors.

If AAAI were to appoint an independent external auditor, publish evaluation parameters, mandate conflict-of-interest declarations and disclose the selection methodology, would that be enough to restore your confidence, or do you believe structural leadership changes are also necessary?

The audit is just  ‘natak’. Why have an audit AFTER I have raised doubts? Why should it not have been there in the first place?

Also what are the terms given to the auditor? Why all the secrecy?

Who are the auditors? Why are they being kept under wraps if everything is being done for transparency?

Will auditors investigate the roll-over? But what is there to audit. It wasn’t on the nomination form. An auditor cannot adjudicate on it.

The committee member who resigned AFTER the meeting when he should never have been there in the first place – what will an auditor do on ethics? I have nothing against anyone personally but AAAI needs fresh blood.

Many professionals agree privately with your concerns but are reluctant to speak publicly. Have you been surprised by the silence of senior industry leaders, and do you believe there is a culture of fear or complacency within the advertising ecosystem?

Nobody wants to fight for what is right. And most believe nothing will change.

Looking beyond this controversy, what should accountability look like for industry associations such as AAAI? Should governance standards for trade bodies be brought closer to those expected of listed companies, with independent oversight, published processes and greater member transparency?

The CCI investigation itself is welcome first step. Restrictive trade practices enrich the biggies, kill the others. And when the nodal bodies remain inert and insular then it is a no-win for all.

You have not asked but I would like to add –

Dr. Goyal has been one of India’s most respected advertising and media professionals for 40 years – Group CEO of Zee, India & Middle East JV partner & Chairman of Dentsu, Chairman of Snapchat India, Principal Secretary to the Govt and now Chairman-owner of Rediffusion, an agency he was President of 30 years ago. The Lifetime Achievement award controversy besmirches his achievements and stature. He needs no lobbying. His industry stature speaks for itself

Dr. Goyal has never sought industry titles – he was on the global Boards of NATAS and MIP TV before most in India had even heard of them. He has been Vice Chair of IBF and served on the boards of MRUC, ASCI, AAAI 25 years ago – not wanting to get involved in industry politics once he turned entrepreneur. I have shouldered the responsibility of representing our interests on industry bodies since 2003 or so – I must be one of the longest serving members of the AAAI board over the years. But I too never sought titles in the body

In 2010 we had a showdown with the AAAI again on cronyism. Sandeep contested for President – the incumbent Colvyn Harris ducked and Sandeep eventually lost 48-46 in a contest that wasn’t all fair play. But Sandeep had proved his point and decided to go back to his low profile.

I am being asked if Dr. Goyal or I will contest the AAAI elections for President that have been announced. My answer is if issues of governance and transparency don’t get resolved, we will certainly consider it.  President Swamy or none of his committee have reached out to talk and resolve. We don’t hunger after titles – never have but then somebody has to stand up and say enough is enough.