Amid the flurry of conversations about the allegedly fake 911 ad for the WWF in Brazil, there is a silver lining.
The One Club is taking a stand, listening to our members (particular thanks to Matt Morin for keeping a level head) and the rest of the industry, and saying, ‘enough is enough.
Here’s the new policy:
Effective beginning in 2010…
1. An agency or regional office of an agency network that enters an ad made for a nonexistent client, or made and run without a client’s approval, will be banned from entering the One Show for five years.
2. The entire team credited on the “fake” entry will be banned from entering the One Show for five years.
3. An agency or regional office of an agency network that enters an ad that has run once, on late-night TV, or only because the agency produced a single ad and paid to run it itself will be banned from entering the One Show for three years.
Here’s the AdAge article.
Check out this outrageous comment by Neil French made recently at Singapores Spike Awards, when he was being interviewed live by BBC journalist Mishal Husain:
As reported in an article by Media, Husain asked French what he thought about such (scam) ads and whether he had a problem deceiving the consumer, wherein the adman replied: “None whatsoever. I’m in advertising; that’s what we do. I don’t mind kids trying hard and cheating and lying to get to the top.”
Wow, what a role model!!!
David, thanks for the post and link. Nice site BTW.
The only problem I could see is the smaller shops may not even enter now for fear of wasting their money on an already “long shot” that may be deemed “fake” just because it’s not a major brand or well known.
At $400 for an entry, it’s a big deal for us to enter anything. I would just hope whoever is going through the work doesn’t just toss stuff because they “think” it’s fake.
I’ll give you an example. We have a toy soldier shop across the street. We’ve been doing ads (yes real ads) Newspaper and Trade ads, posters, DM pieces etc… All 100% legit.
But there’s no way I’d even bother entering them now because they may be deemed “fake” before it even gets judged. That’s a lot of money to spend hoping it makes it to the judges table.
Has One Show ever thought about a “small shop” Discount
-d
Hey, Damon. I’d say you have nothing to worry about if the ads are real. One way to combat it might be to submit multiple tear sheets to show that it has a real media plan vs. one tear sheet from a college newspaper or something. If they’re great and they’re real you shouldn’t have a problem.
Thank you David, and the One Club. This is a great move and will surely restore credibility to at least one industry award show.
It had gotten out of hand. The environment to make scam ads was ripe with probably more than 50% of winners from each show being suspect. This has been causing disillusionment from most creatives that I’ve met, as well as undermining our business. We’re here to focus on real client’s real problems - especially now.
We all know the people who have gotten ahead by cheating. But this also shouldn’t turn into a witch hunt. What would be do, get rid of 40% of the business? In fact, we should move forward and now give all of those people a chance to step up and either apologize, or at least become an advocate for the ethical way of competing with their peers. That’s the best we can hope for. If not, well at least maybe they’ll stop winning (unless they figure another way to defraud the system).
If it doesn’t solve a real brief with outstanding creativity, it is not advertising, period.
The argument that ’scam ads raise the bar of creativity’ is also ridiculous. It does the opposite. It celebrates advertising parlor tricks. It gives ammunition to those who say ‘all creatives care about is doing something crazy or different for the sake of art or shock value’ or that ‘we don’t care about it’s effectiveness’. All too often, when people held up examples of ‘good work’ (that were scam) they proved that some creatives DIDN’T care, that it was just a game.
Lastly, while there are probably hundreds of gripes people can have (judges know each other, it’s all about fees, what about effectiveness, etc), this is one of the biggest, boldest moves to shore up the fundamental reason for a show: to celebrate creative work. To give clients something (creatively) to aim for, because it really was produced and it IS POSSIBLE. (as for effectiveness - any great creative should also enter the Effies…though that can also be bullshitted). You guys have also done a lot to round out juries and ask people to judge ethically.
Let’s just hope that everyone lives up to the bar you’ve set.
A very thoughtful reply, thank you. I agree with you on so many points. One of the biggest thing I fear through all of this is, as you say, a witch hunt. It’s so easy to accuse everyone. But it’s also probably quite true that some people who scam are also doing fantastic work for real clients at the same time. I have no examples to give, but I’m sure it’s happening.
I also like your definition that if it doesn’t solve a real brief, it isn’t advertising. Period.
Does anyone else have any other definitions that can further this discussion?
David, you said: “But it’s also probably quite true that some people who scam are also doing fantastic work for real clients at the same time. I have no examples to give, but I’m sure it’s happening.”
Im sure you have good reason to say this but I’m also a little puzzled by this….if they’re doing fantastic work for real clients then why the need to scam? I think the overwhelming truth is that those who scam do so at the expense of their clients who pay the agencies bills and their salaries. From a client’s point of view, that sounds like they’re being cheated. No?
My point was that agencies like Fallon in the early years were making opportunities for themselves (scam before it was widely practiced) but also doing great work for their real clients. They had these two parallel practices going on.
My bigger point is that this is not the black and white issue we all wish it was. It’s black and white if it’s cheating, of course, but as I’ve said over and over, it’s not so easy to prove. So some agencies do both real and fake work.
Saatchi JC Penney’s spot, ‘Speed dressing,’ Scam. JC Penney’s ‘Magic’ spot, real. I don’t understand why it happens, I don’t. I actually like the magic spot better, tbh, but there you go.
I was really just agreeing with you on your point about this turning into a witch hunt, because we don’t need McCarthyism in our industry. Lot’s of innocent people could get whacked. Plus who’s more at fault, the creatives or the agency management driving their people to do it? It’s probably a case-by-case thing. IMHO, it’s better to enforce the standard to the best of our ability and try to affect change at the agency level to stamp it out.
My hope is that agencies getting banned will lead to them working harder on client business.
I’m really looking forward to see the response from the other award shows of significance…whether they adopt similar rules and back the One Club on this or whether they refuse to do anything about the matter. If they choose the latter option, that’s almost akin to admitting that they are crooked IMO.
It will be interesting to see the response.
David, what about the scammers who now sit on the One Show Board? You know EXACTLY who we mean. They have to go. Period.
An additional thought:
You’ll probably also need to provide a fair amount of “info” for both judges and (if an ad wins) the public. There will no doubt be entries that seem to be scam, but aren’t. …but you guys know this.
There’s also the issue of pro-bono. In this case you should provide info about what, exactly, the agency donated to the cause: time and resources? (a-ok). Or did they pay to run it to? (not a-ok).
There’s a pretty wide grey area here, but I think that erring on the side of more information would be very helpful.
Otherwise, cheers. You guys made the right decision, and your awards are that much more valuable because of it.
How about also being more careful when you pick judges from renowned centres of scam like Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, India etc?
I believe Kevin Swanepoel or Mary Warlick has put in a call to Terry Savage to ask Cannes to take the step along with us. If they haven’t yet because of the holiday here they soon will.
Well done! Not only will this move reward real work that deserves it, but just think of all the time you’ve saved the future judges who no longer have to slog through hours of one offs and fakery.
Seriously, great call.
And Mark’s right, The One Show sets a high standard. I hope the other big shows come along for the ride, too.
Thank you, One Club, for doing the right thing even if it reduces your profits from entry fees.
We need to reward work that is compelling and REAL to evolve this business. Not work that helps dishonest hacks with low talent fake their way to success.
LONG, LONG overdue change. But a good change nonetheless. Hopefully the other major award shows will follow suit.
Kudos.