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!!!

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

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.

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?

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?

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.