LifeLock Attaches Itself to DDB Chicago: No More Rudy Giuliani?

By Patrick Coffee 

Approximately six months after naming a new CMO (surprise!), LifeLock–the identity theft company that frequently advertises on talk radio–has named DDB Chicago as its new agency of record.

The client didn’t announce a review, and this is the first agency move it has made since October 2013, when it signed with what is now Campbell Ewald after an earlier CMO’s arrival. As predicted by our savvy commentersSeth Greenberg lasted just over 18 months in the chief marketer position–and the creative review followed his departure.

His replacement Ty Shay says, “We are excited to have chosen DDB Chicago. We feel they are best suited to help us grow our business given their strategic and creative capabilities.”


Here’s the client’s most recent TV spot, “Engaged.”

The far better ad for this client, though, comes via the dudes at Mediaite who insist on putting their damn logo before every video whose views they steal from its original source.

It stars the guy who was everyone’s favorite GOP presidential candidate approximately eight years ago. The press release calls him “America’s mayor” and includes some truly excellent quotes.

We feel safer already.

You may have heard some news involving LifeLock over the summer. In 2010, the FTC settled with the company over false advertising claims, and in July the agency accused LifeLock of violating the terms to which it agreed five years ago. The report is fun:

“[The 2010 settlement] required LifeLock to take more stringent measures to safeguard the personal information it collects from customers; and required LifeLock to pay $12 million for consumer refunds.”

Now, the FTC claims that, “from at least October 2012 through March 2014,” the client did the following:

“1) failing to establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program to protect its users’ sensitive personal data, including credit card, social security, and bank account numbers

2) falsely advertising that it protected consumers’ sensitive data with the same high-level safeguards as financial institutions

3) failing to meet the 2010 order’s recordkeeping requirements.”

Of course, all parties are presumed innocent. But is it so surprising to learn that a company specializing in security (allegedly) failed to properly secure its own customers’ data?