Quiet firing comes to advertising

For decades, the advertising industry sold itself as a people business. Agencies celebrated experience, intuition, mentorship, and institutional memory. Senior professionals were valued not just for their output, but for their ability to manage clients, guide younger teams, and navigate crises. But something unsettling appears to be happening across the industry today.

In the recent past, several experienced professionals seem to have related remarkably similar stories. They were called into what was presented as a routine KRA or performance review meeting and then informed that their services were no longer required. Many were shocked. Some had spent years, even decades building brands, relationships, and reputations within their agencies. None had expected the meeting to end in termination.

Increasingly, this phenomenon is being described globally as “quiet firing.”

Unlike a traditional layoff, quiet firing does not openly acknowledge restructuring, downsizing, or cost-cutting. Instead, organizations frame exits as “performance issues.” On paper, it sounds procedural and objective. In reality, critics argue that it is often a strategic exercise designed to reduce costs, avoid severance obligations, and minimize legal exposure.

The timing is not accidental. The advertising and media business is under immense pressure. Margins are shrinking, clients are demanding more for less, AI is beginning to automate certain functions, and holding companies are under constant pressure to improve profitability. In such an environment, experienced employees often become vulnerable — not because they lack competence, but because they are expensive.

A senior professional with ten or fifteen years of experience typically commands a significantly higher salary than a younger replacement. During periods of financial tightening, replacing one senior employee with two or three junior resources may appear attractive on a spreadsheet. Unfortunately, balance sheets do not capture the hidden value of experience.

This is where the language of “performance” becomes useful.

Rather than openly announcing downsizing, companies may place employees on Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs), increase scrutiny, or suddenly redefine expectations. The documentation creates a formal “paper trail” that helps justify termination. From a legal standpoint, this can offer organizations protection against allegations of wrongful termination or discrimination. From a public relations standpoint, it also sounds better than admitting to cost-cutting or restructuring.

The irony is that many of the people being labelled “underperformers” were once considered high performers. In fact, some insiders suggest that experienced professionals can become targets precisely because they ask difficult questions, challenge management decisions, or possess the confidence that comes with tenure. A younger workforce may be cheaper, more compliant, and easier to reshape around new structures and technologies.

AI has further intensified these anxieties.

As automation tools enter creative, planning, analytics, and production workflows, agencies are rethinking traditional staffing models. While AI can undoubtedly improve efficiency, it has also created a convenient backdrop against which organizations can rationalize workforce reductions. The assumption  sometimes unfairly  is that senior employees are slower to adapt to technology or less aligned with “new-age” working styles.

But the advertising business has always been cyclical. Every technological disruption from desktop publishing to digital media to programmatic advertising initially promised the end of traditional roles. Yet industries eventually rediscovered the importance of judgment, creativity, relationships, and strategic thinking. Technology changes processes. It does not automatically replace wisdom.

There is also a cultural cost to quiet firing that companies may be underestimating.

When long-serving employees are suddenly removed under the shadow of “performance issues,” it creates fear across the organization. Younger employees watch carefully. Loyalty begins to lose meaning. Institutional trust erodes. Agencies risk creating environments where survival matters more than collaboration, experimentation, or long-term thinking.

None of this suggests that poor performance does not exist. Every organization must maintain standards and accountability. But there is a difference between genuine performance management and using performance language as camouflage for financial or structural decisions.

Perhaps the industry needs greater honesty.

If agencies are restructuring because of economic pressures, automation, or changing business models, employees deserve transparency. Quiet firing may protect short-term optics, but it can damage long-term culture. And in an industry built on human creativity and relationships, culture remains one of the few true competitive advantages left.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not in any way represent the views of exchange4media.com.